Who Are The Agricultural Workers

A Perspective Paper on Agrarian Reform and Agricultural Workers [1]

[The National Alliance Of Agricultural Worker Unions (Alliance) was formed in 2005 to foster links among independent agricultural workers unions/organisations and to represent their interests in different forums.This paper was finalized in a National Consultation organised by the Alliance in Delhi on 23rd and 24th August 2006]

According to the Rural Labour Enquiry Report 1999-2000[2], India had 44.18 million agricultural labour households (32% of all rural households). This is an increase of 7.9 million in only six years from 1993-94, when the number of such households was 36.26 million or 30% of all rural households. In addition, numerous workers engaged in livestock, forestry, fishing, orchards and allied activities as well as small and marginal farmers work as agricultural workers in times of difficulty to supplement their meagre incomes.

About 75% of Agricultural Labour Households (ALHs) are landless or nearly landless. In addition, 11.2% ALHs own 0.21- 0.40 hectares land. Thus 86.2% of ALHs are 'poor' and 'marginal' and are compelled to do any type of manual work in agriculture under any conditions forced upon them. Green Revolution states like Punjab and Haryana show high incidence of landlessness (61.19% and 49.26% respectively). This extreme form of landlessness – where more than or nearly half of the rural households are landless – is visible also in Maharashtra (49.95%) and land-reform-famed West Bengal (49.79%).[3]

Out of Scheduled Caste [people of lower castes] rural households (22% of all rural households), 51.4% are agricultural labour households. Of the Scheduled Tribe [ST] rural households (11% of all rural households), 39.6% are agricultural labour households. Amongst Other Backward Caste rural [OBC] households (37% of all rural households), 29.2% are agricultural labour households. However, amongst upper caste rural households (30% of all rural households), only 19% are agricultural labour households. Thus it is the socially oppressed caste groups that form the bulk of agricultural workers.

Of the 126 million female main workers in India in 2001, as many as 50 million or 40% were agricultural workers. Not only that, wage work in agriculture is becoming an occupation of greater importance for women. Thus the percentage of female main workers to total female population has increased from 6.83% in 1961 to 12.12 % in 2001.[4] It has also been observed that across the country there has been as a feminisation of the agricultural work force. From 1993-94 to 1999-2000, the number of women agricultural workers increased from 22.5 million to 29.3 million or from 35% of all agricultural workers to 37%. Male agricultural workers during the same period reduced from 62% to 61%.  In a State like Punjab after the so-called land reform period women agricultural workers have increased by more than 300 times. In the State of Kerala too where the most radical land reform took place, while male agricultural workers grew at a steady rate, female agricultural workers grew at twice this rate between the period of 1951-1975.

Agricultural workers are thus growing in number. They are amongst the poorest groups in rural areas, with little or no land in their names. They are predominantly from amongst the SCs, STs and OBCs and more and more agricultural workers are now women than ever before. 

Creation of a Class and Land Reforms

In India, an agrarian society for centuries, most major pre-industrial and technological skill evident till 15^th and 16^th centuries had their base in agriculture. Although the problem of surplus labour started before the colonial period, the problem became visible in the colonial period. The reason for this was the omnipresence of absentee landlordism that resulted in food insecurity and destruction of traditional agro-based artisanship.

The agrarian crisis became a fundamental barrier to the development of productive forces in pre independence India. The key issue during the national liberation struggle was radical agrarian reform to remove absentee landlordism and liberate productive forces. These were also central issues for Adivasi [the indigenous people] movements in the 18^th, 19^th and 20^th centuries and peasant movements in the last two decades before India became independent. The principles of future land reform policy became the core issue especially after the withdrawal of Chori Chora Satyagraha [a milestone event in Indian freedom struggle]. At the same time the revolutionaries led by HSRO (Hindustan Socialist Republic Organisation) strongly raised the issue of complete abolishment of Zamindari [landlord] System. On 15th March 1947, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar [architect of Indian Constitution and of the ‘untouchable’ caste who prefer to be called Dalits, the oppressed] proposed that all private and public lands should be nationalised and distributed to all those living on land for collective cultivation.

However, under the pressure of feudal forces the Congress party took a resolution only for land distribution. Abolition of intermediary land tenure system was given top priority immediately after the Independence as this system was known for its exploitation of tenants. On the eve of independence about 173 million acres out of 324 million acres of cultivable land was under intermediary tenures. It should be added here that the tenants were kept bonded for agricultural work.

Zamindari abolition had some negative aspects. Firstly a lot of money (Rs. 534 crores or Rs. 5,340 million) had to be paid in the form of compensation to the erstwhile Zamindars [landlords]. Secondly, large chunks of land could be retained by Zamindars by claiming these as land under personal cultivation. Thirdly ownership rights were conferred not on the actual cultivator but on the recorded statutory tenant. However, these tenants had a chain of sub-tenants who were actual tillers and belonged to the vulnerable sections of the society. As a result many actual tillers who were small and marginal tenants and who belonged to the dalit and adivasi sections were thus deprived of land.

In addition, the Forest Department (FD) became the largest Zamindar in the post-independent era. Private forest surrendered by the princely States, large chunks of pastures, common property resources and community forests were transferred to Forest Department. The rights of tribal and forest dwellers were reduced to concessions and later abolished totally. These lands were given for management, with no ownership rights. However, the FD now claims to be holding 23% of land on which barely 9% of forest exists, while the owners/traditional users of the forest are called as encroachers.

Similarly huge tracts of land were given for plantations, where even today at least 30-40% of the land lies unused. Workers in plantations were given no ownership rights to even the house that they had been living in for the past four to five generations. Industry was also given huge tracts of land, as were mines. Many of those who depended on these lands for a living were displaced, leaving them with agricultural labour as their only means of subsistence.

Thus, India entered the post land reforms period in the 1960's with little changed (except in a few pockets of 'forward' states). Ceiling laws that were enacted later on were so liberal towards landed elements and their implementation was so ineffective that land concentration remained unchanged. The entire implementation was left with corrupt local land revenue functionaries. Landowners had the option to surrender the land of their choice. Consequently they surrendered the worst land mostly unfit for cultivation.

Overwhelming vestiges of semi-feudal relations, exploitations, customs, etc. were thus preserved. As a result a serious crisis emerged in the 1960’s resulting in a series of movements of peasants and agricultural workers throughout the country. From 1964 to 1976, 4 lakh landless labourers [400,000] under the leadership of Dadasaheb Gaikwad, a staunch follower of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, were jailed in Maharashtra for demanding redistribution of land. The shortage of food also became a serious problem. Even then the government instead of addressing the problem of distribution of land and other resources emphasised the need to accelerate agricultural production.

From mid-sixties onwards Indian agriculture was exposed to new technology, popularly known as Green Revolution. As a result, the agricultural growth rate, particularly food production, increased substantially. However, the gains of the Green Revolution were cornered by better off farmers, while marginal farmers and agricultural worker could not gain significantly due to the lack of a land base. Social conflicts became sharper. In the late 60’s and 70’s, radical peasant movements (later labelled "Naxalite") started. The government, however, preferred to treat them as law and order problems, ignoring the socio-economic exploitation that they highlighted.

In the '70s, land distribution to SCs and STs was part of [then Prime Minister] Indira Gandhi's 21 point programme. After the emergency was imposed, pattas [land titles] were distributed. However, without a political agenda and with a reactionary administration, many landless got pattas in paper, but not actual possession.

After continuing this farce for some more years, in the 1990’s the notion of land reform was completely dropped by the political parties because of liberalisation policies. Instead, the trend is now of acquiring huge tracts of land for industrialisation, special economic zones, dams and development of new townships. Some inadequate compensation is being given to landowners who are losing their land. However, little thought is being given by the Government or by social movements to the needs of the huge numbers of agricultural workers who are being displaced by the forced conversion of land from agricultural to other purposes.

In states like West Bengal where some amount of redistribution of land has taken place, in the post liberalisation phase, reverse "land reform" is taking place. Agricultural workers who had received some amount of land are again becoming landless. A survey by Jayati Gupta showed that 33.9% of those surveyed have had to part with land or raise interests at high rates to pay for dowry. The people who were selling or mortgaging their lands for dowry were agricultural labourers and cultivators with small land holdings, or people with small businesses (such as tea shops, van rickshaw pulling etcetera).

During these sixty years of independence all major political parties have had the privilege to rule the country. However, the situation of land distribution is as skewed as in the colonial period.

Ownership of land: Present Status

In the last two or three decades, in real terms, the incidence of landlessness has increased. "Two decades ago, of every hundred families in rural India, 31 families were landless. Today, the figure has gone up to 41 families out of every hundred. "(Times of India: 10 December, 2004). Even in the land-reform-famed West Bengal, the landlessness among the rural agricultural households has reached a new high (39.6% in 1987-88 and 49.8% in 1999-2000).[5]

Landlessness has increased in the post-independent era, particularly amongst the socially oppressed groups. In 1982, the percentages of landless and semi-landless households amongst SCs were 12.6% and 48% respectively. The corresponding percentages among the other rural households were 10.2% and 24.9% However, in 1992, landlessness among SC households increased to 13.3% and semi-landlessness declined to 47.5% while in the case of other households landlessness remained as same at 10.2% and the semi-landlessness increased to 27.4%.[6] Needless to say, almost all women agricultural workers continue to be landless. Land however remains a central demand for agricultural workers, as this would give workers an asset base from which to raise their demands for higher wages and better working conditions. 

Commercialisation of agriculture

Agriculture for commercial purposes started on a large scale in the colonial period with unfortunate consequences for agricultural workers. The Green Revolution in the 1960's and 70's only hastened this trend. The opening up of the Indian economy after the 1990's and globalisation have further advanced this process.

The process has been one of a shift away from using agriculture and allied activities to meet subsistence needs to producing for the market. It has involved a change from using low cost locally available inputs to using inputs like fertilisers, seeds, pesticides etc. that are produced by industry. Agriculture has become increasingly dependent on water intensive methods. Similarly, dependence on external markets for sale of outputs has also increased. All this has meant that agriculture has become a very expensive and risky proposition. For marginal and small farmers, most of whom are also agricultural workers, this has meant greater insecurity and greater indebtedness. With stagnation in agriculture and fall in public investment in the past few years, the consequences have been grave with increasing reports of farmer suicides. "Since 2001, Vidharbha alone has reported 2279 suicides, 728 of them in the past one year".[7]

Another side of the same problem has been that there has been a loss of food security amongst agricultural workers. Where earlier agricultural workers with small plots of land would grow coarse food grains or traditional varieties of paddy that were suitable for the climatic conditions in which they lived, today they rather grow an expensive commercial crop such as soybean or tomato. In the process, dependence on the market for food grains has increased, with an adverse impact on food security. Along with this, free sources of food (e.g. forests; common property resources; freely available fish in fields and wetlands; gleaning of food grains from the fields after harvest etc) have also become scarce. All these sources are now commercially exploited and are therefore out of reach of agricultural workers.

Agricultural workers form the large bulk of those who do not get minimum food requirements of 2400 Kcals per day i.e. those below the poverty line. As per the Government's official estimation, the poverty ratio in India came down to 26% in 1999-2000 from 36% in 1993-94 i.e. a remarkable 10% decline in just five years. But in reality, this has been mere statistical jugglery. "In the rural areas of most of the major states, more than 80% of the population is not able to afford food, which fulfils their calorie requirements. The case of [the state of] Andhra Pradesh is glaring. The official poverty line there is the lowest and consequently poverty ratio estimated by the Planning Commission is only 10%. However, as per our computation 89.4% of population in Andhra Pradesh is not able to afford 2400 Kcal per capita per diem. Similarly, in Gujarat [state], the official poverty line is low and the poverty ratio is 12.4%. The calorie norms, however, require the poverty line to be very much higher and the corresponding poverty ratio turns out to be 86%"[8]

Converting agriculture from a system for production of food and other essentials for those dependent on agriculture into an enterprise that is mainly for profit has also been aggravated in recent years by the entry of the corporate sector into agriculture. WTO's Agreement on Agriculture, leading to the further "integration" of Indian agriculture with world trends will only worsen the situation. For example, new methods such as contract farming have been introduced, where a large company provides all the inputs to a number of farmers and contracts to buy their produce. New forms of powerlessness take birth in the process. With no protection in place for occupational health, agricultural workers risk exposure to high levels of pesticides and genetically modified seeds that are used without the knowledge of workers.

Another development that has been a part and parcel of agriculture becoming an enterprise is the creation of huge amount of unemployment in agriculture. This has been caused by developments such as increasing mechanisation in agriculture; the move towards commercial crops that are less labour intensive (e.g. replacing paddy cultivation with prawn farms); the use of agricultural land for non agricultural purposes etc. Agricultural workers now face huge periods of unemployment or underemployment. "... A field study in two districts in Haryana conducted by the Indian Institute of Women Studies and Development for the ministry of labour found fewer than 50 days of agricultural work a year – 35-43 days for women and 32-44 days for men. …. "[9] According to the "Rural Labour Enquiry", out of 4.65 persons (average household size) in an agricultural labour household (ALH), 2.62 persons or 56.34% are non-'occupied' i.e. unemployed. Only 1.74 persons or 37.42% in ALHs are engaged in agricultural labour. ALHs of green-revolution famed Haryana and Punjab get least agricultural jobs (20.7% and 23.5% respectively). Therefore, incidence of unemployment among the ALHs is maximum (72.4% and 69%) in these states which is well above the national level of 56.1%.

A simultaneous development has been that agricultural workers in growing numbers are being forced to migrate in search of work. Along with this, the distances that people have to go to find work is also increasing. Inter state migration and even migration to other countries in search of work is becoming a common experience for agricultural workers, especially the men folk. In the absence of effective protective legislation, this means that workers end up in strange surroundings open to greater exploitation, living and working in inhuman conditions, often even in conditions of bondage. 

Working Conditions and Labour Rights

According to the Rural Labour Enquiry the minimum daily wages/earnings by Agricultural Labour Households (ALHs) was Rs. 40.15 for men, Rs. 28.38 for women and Rs. 24.23 for child workers in 1999-2000. Therefore, the female workers, on an average, earn 70% and the child workers earn 60% of the wages earned by the male workers.

In many states, average wages received by the workers scarcely touch the lower limit of minimum wages fixed by the respective state governments. Even in states like Haryana and Punjab, agricultural workers get (in 1999-2000) Rs. 60.04 and 63.57 respectively) less than the minimum range (Rs. 71.21 – 72.21 and Rs. 67.25 – 69.80) fixed by the respective state governments. [10]

There are also other problems with the minimum wage fixation. There are large variations in the rate of minimum wages fixed in different states. Thus the statutory minimum wage for agricultural work in Kerala is five times more than that of the states with the lowest statutory wage. The problem is further aggravated by the failure of state governments to revise wages regularly in spite of increase in price index and the reluctance to revise the basic wage in spite of huge rises in price index.

 There is also the need to question the whole method by which minimum wages are determined. The Constitution talks about the living wage in Article 43 and not about the minimum wage. The Supreme Court has also given orders saying that minimum wage should include housing, costs of education, health care, social security etc. A living wage also implies that workers should receive these wages for an eight-hour working day and should receive sufficient money to allow them a weekly holiday after working for six days. However, in actuality, agricultural workers work for pittance wages for long hours that start with the rise of the sun and stops only at sunset.

While the above gives a picture of the (non)-implementation of the Minimum Wages Act, there are other laws that are supposed to provide some protection to agricultural workers. Some of these are as follows:

•         Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act 1976 which provides for the release of bonded labour from debt and forced labour.

•         Interstate Migrant Workmen's Act 1979 that provides for the registration of workers and the contractors who take them to another state and protects the rights of workers who migrate for work to another state;

•         Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 provides for the protection of contract workers and their regularisation.

•         Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act 1986 provides for the banning of employment of children in hazardous occupations and regulation of their conditions of work in other occupations.

The latest in this line of legislation is the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 [NREGA] that provides each rural household with a guarantee of 100 days of work at minimum wages in 200 districts. Also, there is the much debated social security legislation for unorganised sector workers that has been reformulated many times in the past decade. Similarly a comprehensive legislation for agricultural workers has been on the anvil since 1974, but has been resisted each time by the farmers' lobby in various states. At present, two states (Kerala and Tripura) have state level legislation for agricultural workers that provide for both regulation of employment and social security. Tamil Nadu [state] also has a welfare board for agricultural workers that are not fully functional as yet. The Forest Bill that will give rights over forestland to forest dwellers, many of whom are also agricultural workers is also being debated at present in the Parliament.

The plethora of laws that we have listed above have failed even in the minimum possible manner to protect the rights of agricultural workers. The reasons are fairly obvious- on the one hand, it is almost impossible for agricultural workers to organise to get these laws implemented, as all rural power groups ranging from bureaucracy, political leaders, police, land owners and employers are pitted against them. On the other hand, the laws themselves are full of loopholes, the enforcers (the Labour Department) are ineffectual, even where workers get organised enough to fight for their implementation.

Social justice

The rights of agricultural workers cannot be addressed until and unless we also talk about the social discrimination to which they are subjected. We have already mentioned that there is a disproportionate representation of agricultural labour households from amongst SCs and STs. Broadly speaking, it would not be incorrect to say that land owners and employers in agriculture are generally from the upper castes, while agricultural workers are mostly from amongst the dalits and adivasis. We have already given figures on the way land ownership is skewed against dalits and adivasis. Figures on incidence of poverty also show a disproportionate representation from amongst these groups.

 A direct outcome of this is that economic exploitation is inextricably linked with social exploitation. Landowners do not use only economic power to suppress workers- they also use the age-old factor of caste as a means of making agricultural workers feel inferior. Wage struggles and the fight against economic exploitation are turned into caste conflicts by landowners. Upper caste groupings are used to break any attempt by the lower caste agricultural workers to establish their rights. Violence is accompanied by the traditional justification for power of the upper castes over the low castes.

The nexus between class and caste often works to undo the gains that any agricultural worker could make from any new law. This is very clear in the case of NREGA, where union members can see obvious collaboration between the Sarpanches [rural local government functionaries] and bureaucrats, many from the same caste group to make NREGA a failure.

Social exclusion also takes on various shapes in various places- caste, religion, tribal identities, even political party affiliation combine with economic class to ensure that certain groups are oppressed and exploited.

Women in Agricultural Work

In agricultural and forest sectors even though women form a major portion of the workforce, they have virtually no control over resources. The importance of women as cultivators or decision makers within agriculture is declining, with cultivators as percentage of total female population declining from 15.47% to 8.35% from 1961 to 2001 [11].  Right after independence, when changes were brought in the tenurial system, no place was given to women. Rural poor women acquired less than 1 percent of land as owners. All the revenue and land reform acts are highly patriarchal. While joint pattas and pattas for women have recently been started, it would not be an exaggeration to say that almost all women from amongst agricultural workers are landless, with even the homestead being in the name of the man.

Women suffer more from poverty even within their own class, as they have no economic or political power at home and in the public sphere. A study by Sanjoy Basu Mullick in Jharkhand [state] has shown that places where women had greater control over production and forest resources had higher sex ratios, thus showing that there is a direct correlation between women's survival and their control of productive resources.

An important reason for women's low status is that her work is identified as being unproductive. In agriculture especially this is a myth, as much of the work that women do as unpaid domestic work often makes the difference between survival and starvation for poor agricultural worker families. Thus women are engaged in paddy processing and animal husbandry within the household without these being recognised as wage work. Similarly women may be involved in "non-economic" activities like catching fish from canals, collecting of wild fruits, leaves and vegetables and gleaning of grain to supplement the family's food. Maintenance of the family's mud hut is often women's work too as is collection of fodder, fuel and water. At the low wage paid for agricultural work, all these activities contribute to the household's survival. If an economic value was put to this work it would probably amount to more than the wages earned by male members of the family.

In spite of this, women are often victims of violence within the family. With no property rights, women are also in danger of being on the streets if family life breaks down in any way. Problems such as alcoholism amongst their men folk also often force women to live in insecure circumstances. The spread of dowry amongst castes and groups where this practise was absent earlier has also led to an undervaluation of women. A more recent phenomenon is that of men migrating for work, leaving women for long periods without any economic contribution, where single women headed households have to struggle for survival.

Outside the family, as wageworkers, women get the lowest wages. The common stereotype is that “women do less work” and often male workers support the landowner when he pays less to women, from a patriarchal view of women's work. Women are also preferred by owners as workers, because they are also a more docile work force. Sexual harassment at work and even the use of rape by landowners as an instrument to suppress all kinds of protest are also experiences that are faced by women agricultural workers.

An interesting statistic that reflects on women's status within agriculture is that of their employment. According to the Rural Labour Enquiry, in 1999-2000 men agricultural workers received work for 222 days while women workers got work for only 192 days. It is significant to observe here that women lost days of work not so much due to non-availability of work- men lost 36 days due to want of work, and women lost slightly less at 32 days. However, sickness amongst women seems to have been an important reason for loss of work- women lost 77 days due to sickness compared to 31 days for men.

Problems in Organising

Agricultural unions are faced by the following problems when they try to organise their members:

•         Stagnation in agriculture has meant that workers face joblessness, and are forced to migrate, resulting in empty villages. It becomes very difficult for unions to organise workers who are absent for long periods from their villages, and who also do not have fixed places of employment

•         The employer – employee relationship is not always clearly identifiable. Workers work for multiple employers and for short periods of time with each employer, making it difficult to organise for rights vis a vis the employer.

•         Organising across regions and states (sometimes even within a state) is difficult because the levels of development from one region to another are different and therefore people's objective situations differ. This becomes especially tough when we talk about a national level federation.

•         Acts and rules for registration of trade unions are not suitable for agricultural workers, being designed primarily with industrial factory based workers in mind. There is also resistance from bureaucracy, making registration of trade unions problematic.

•         Agricultural workers live a hand to mouth existence, making it difficult for them to struggle in a sustained manner. They are often not able to meet the costs of running the union through their membership fees, creating a need for external subsidies

•         There is no history of collective bargaining in the agricultural sector, nor does the state take any steps to encourage the same.

•         The development of class consciousness amongst agricultural workers has not been there. Society also does not recognise them as a class and their interests are often subsumed within the interests of peasants as a whole.

 Our Strategy   

In the short term, we aim to use NREGA and the struggle for comprehensive welfare legislation as a means of organising and expanding our unions. We also aim to deal with social and cultural aspects of exploitation such as gender and caste. We aim to promote membership based organisations of agricultural workers such as trade unions, associations, federations, confederations etc. and to assist unorganised agricultural workers to organise themselves. Through all this we aim to develop an independent voice for agricultural workers.

Our long-term aim is for the community control of all productive resources. As a step towards this we shall work for people oriented land reforms. We shall also gain control over land and other productive resources as and when possible and shall ensure collective ownership of these. 

Our Demands

Charter of demands

We oppose The establishment of Special Economic Zones and the use of agricultural and village lands for industry, mining or mega projects; in addition, the use of the excuse that land is degraded for allotment of land for all the above purposes.

We oppose the increasing pauperisation of agricultural workers through phenomenon such as corporate farming in agriculture.

We also oppose “Reverse” land reform that allows market forces to take over the land market, with large farmers and the corporate sector taking over land from small and marginal farmers.

We demand that land must belong to only those who earn a living from working on the land

We demand that land be redistributed with special emphasis on equal ownership rights for women and that land redistribution be a central issue in the political agenda of the Central and State Government.

We demand that land rights be seen as a livelihood resource and not as property, with collective ownership to ensure the continuity of possession of the land by the landless and the poor peasants.

We demand that land earmarked for distribution to SCs and STs not be given to other groups

We demand that control of common property and natural resources and irrigation water be in the hands of agricultural workers.

We demand that full rights to forest land and forest produce be extended to forest dwellers and that there be community management of forest resources.

We also demand that right to homestead land be an integral part of agrarian reform.

We demand compulsory consultation with agricultural workers in matters that relate to their working conditions and to agricultural policy in general.

We demand that social security identity cards be given to all agricultural workers

We demand a Central comprehensive legislation for agricultural workers with special emphasis on regulation of employment and labour rights, including social security.

We demand qualitative equal educational facility for agriculture workers children must be ensured.

W e demand a Uniform National Living Wages that ensures a standard and honorable living for agricultural workers that is at par with other sections of society, and that workers are paid enough for six days of work to enjoy a paid weekly holiday. Equal remuneration for equal work, irrespective of gender, caste, creed, race, religion and community must be paid.

We demand that a guarantee of minimum working days (300 days) for the agricultural labour force. 

We demand special measures for women workers such as maternity benefits, crèches, and protection from sexual harassment. Unpaid domestic labour must also be recognised for its economic contribution.

We demand provision of essential commodities at subsidised rates by the state.

We demand improved credit facilities by the state to meet emergency consumption needs of agricultural workers, and appropriate credit and technical support for the poor and landless peasants for sustainable agriculture should be ensured.

We demand state managed system for identification, prevention, treatment and compensation for occupational hazards.

We demand a ban on labour displacing machinery in agriculture.

---

1.The National Alliance Of Agricultural Worker Unions (Alliance) was formed in 2005 to foster links amongst independent agricultural workers unions/organisations and to represent their interests in different forums. It is a secular federation without allegiance to any political party. The primary object of our alliance is to protect and promote our labour rights as agricultural workers in all respects. Presently, the Alliance has 19 member unions with an affiliated membership of about 4 lakhs [400,00]. This paper was finalized in a National Consultation organised by the Alliance in Delhi on 23^rd and 24^th August 2006

[2] 55th Round of NSS 1999-2000

[3] ibid.

[4] Census of India

[5] West Bengal Human Development Report (2004).

[6] G. Nanchariah

[7] Frontline, September 8, 2006

[8] "Magnifying mal-development" Alternative Economic Survey, 2004    

[9] Times of India, 10 December, 2004

[10] Rural Labour Enquiry 1999-2000

[11]  Census of India

Tea Garden Starvation Deaths

[Published in Uttar Banga Sambad, August 2007]

The tea industry in the Doars is in the news – for the wrong reasons once again. The spectre of hunger and starvation death seems to haunt it forever. The latest impetus has been provided by a report produced by Uttaran Workers’ Facilitation Centre based on figures given by the CMOH Jalpaiguri. This report places the number of deaths in 14 closed tea gardens at 571 from January 2006 to mid March 2007. The recording of these deaths was part of a laudable effort taken by the CMOH and the District administration to understand the kinds of deaths that have taken place.

 According to the District Magistrate’s Status Report on Relief Measures in Closed Gardens, the population in these 14 gardens is 69038, giving a crude death rate for 2006, when 468 of these deaths occurred, of 6.8 per thousand. This is higher than the crude death rate for West Bengal (6.4 per thousand according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare). Of greater concern is the fact that 105 of the total deaths or almost one fifth of these deaths occurred in just two and a half months.

Certain other disturbing facts are also emerging from this report – 329 or 58% of the deaths have been amongst the working age group, amounting to a huge erosion in the work force of these estates. Also, almost all the deaths (89%) took place at home and only 51 of these people were able to reach a hospital before they died, pointing to the near absence of available medical care. Bharnabari, an estate that closed down in January 2006 and had been running regularly before that, reported 79 deaths within 14 months of closure. 

While figures of this type may seem run of the mill to those who deal with rural poverty in India, in the case of the tea industry they seem especially shocking. These are not figures for poverty stricken, chronically backward villages in some remote part of the country- these are deaths in an organised, unionised sector, with clear labour laws. In a sector in which India is still a world leader and where the annual turnover is more that Rs.10,000 crores, it is almost as if the population had no financial or nutritional reserves to fall back on when closure took place.

 Never Enough To Eat A Stomach Full

According to the Committee on Fair Wages, the first committee on wages in independent India, a worker requires 2700 calories per day per person. It needs Rs.27.78 per worker at current prices to provide workers with the food intake recommended by the Committee on Fair Wages. A family of 5 (2 adults and 3 children or 3.5 units, taking each child as half an adult) would therefore require Rs.97.23 per day only for proper nutrition. The present wage rate in the tea gardens of the Doars is Rs.53.50 per day. Workers are also given subsidised rations every week (many gardens report a back log in rations however). These would amount to 9 kgs and 360 grams of food grains per week or 1kg and 340 gms per day for a family of 5 with only 1 worker. Workers pay only 40 paise per kg for these rations, while the market rate would be about Rs.10 per kg. Workers therefore receive Rs.12.84 per day in the form of foodgrains. Along with all the other facilities that workers get under the Plantation Labour Act (fuel, housing, free drinking water etc.) the wage rate would therefore amount Rs. 75-80 per day, which is way below the amount required for proper nutrition, let alone for other requirements.

The impact of low wages on workers’ nutrition is clear from a study done in 2005 by Paschim Banga Khet Majoor Samity (PBKMS), the International Union of Food Processing, Plantation and Agricultural Workers (IUF) and the American Jewish World Service. The study was done amongst 120 families of tea workers in 2 open and well running, 2 open but sick and 2 closed gardens in the Doars. The study showed that nutritional conditions were very bad in even the 4 open gardens i.e. Based on World Health Organization criteria for Body Mass Index, all four open gardens surveyed can be labeled as “starving communities” or “at critical risk for mortality from starvation.”  35% of workers in 4 open gardens were consuming less than 2400 calories per day (BPL level). At least 32.5 % or one-third families in open gardens had gone hungry due to lack of food for one whole day in the previous year

Studies by the Indian Council of Medical Research in 2006 and 2007 in show similar condition in the Assam tea gardens, where wage structures are similar to those in the Doars

Compared to national standards, the mean height and weight of tea garden children was inferior at all ages. Assessment of nutritional status using WHO recommended anthropometric indicators revealed a high prevalence of malnutrition among tea garden school age children and malnutrition was both chronic and recent in nature.

Almost half the adolescents were stunted (height for age) and all of them were thin (weight for age), 69.9 % adults were thin, 59.9% children were underweight. Prevalence of anemia, worm infestation, filaria, TB, skin problems were significantly high amongst the tea garden population.

When The Worker Falls Sick

According to Section 10 of the Plantation Labour Act 1951, medical facilities are to be provided in each and every plantation.  An NGO, Swadhikar, in a survey of 132 gardens in Jalpaiguri district in 2006 showed that half the gardens did not have qualified doctors. Simple emergency aids such as antiseptic lotions, gauze etc were not available in 51% of the gardens, while 95% of the gardens did not keep anti-snake venom. Many did not dispense free drugs (40%) or reimburse workers for drugs bought outside (45%). Only 4% of the gardens bore all the medical costs for investigations, hospitalization etc.

PBKMS and IUF’s study on closed and reopened tea gardens in 2005 shows similar results. “Of the 13 re-opened plantations for which information is available, in 6 of the plantations, medical facilities were said to be non-existent or almost non existent…. Qualified doctors were not available in most of the gardens. The medical reimbursements for the labourers and the members of staff have been pending for years together. Ambulance facilities were also not available in most of the gardens. An example from Toorsa TE would make this clearer. Lolit Koirala led us to the ward of the garden hospital. There we met a TB patient, who has been lying in the bed for three months. He was unable to walk and could not even speak properly. According to him, he had not been getting medicine for the last seven days. He had never been given food from the hospital. There was no attendant. His family members were attending to him after finishing the day’s work in the garden. It was impossible for them to stop work as “no work means no pay”. In Carron TE, the patients admitted to the plantation hospital were receiving a broth of rice (phena bhat) with salt or boiled potatoes as food.”

After low levels of wages and very little medical treatment, it is not surprising therefore that closure should lead to a rapid rise in deaths.

A Crisis of Profits?

Why then are workers in this state in the tea industry? Is the industry gripped by a crisis? Is that why workers are not getting sufficient wages?

Owners and owner associations have been blaming various factors like global competition and fall in prices for a crisis in the tea industry. However there are various other factors that come to light when one examines what is happening in the tea industry. For example there has been a consistent rise in the difference between the price that consumers have to pay for tea and the price at which producers sell in the auction markets. Many people in the industry believe that large buyers have been colluding on the auction floor to artificially depress prices paid to producers and are reaping profits in the process. Many also argue that the industry is not primarily export oriented. Only 17% of Indian tea is exported while the rest is consumed in India. And, the Indian tea market is an expanding one. Hence, global competition should not have created such a problem.

Paradoxically, the world leaders in the tea sector- Tata Tea and Hindustan Unilever – seem to have been flourishing during the period when the tea crisis gripped workers in the Doars, leading to starvation deaths. According to an IUF report presented at a national tea unions meeting from 1^st to 3^rd June 2007 in Kolkata, Hindustan Unilever has totally divested its investment in plantations during 2001 -2006, the period of the tea crisis. It has shifted all its plantations to subsidiary companies. In March 2005 it shifted 12,400 workers to different companies. It no longer produces any garden tea, though it still produces 61,481 tonnes of packed tea. Its sales of tea have come down by 13% from 2001 to 2006, but all this does not mean that Hindustan Unilever (like the workers in tea) is in decline – from 2005 to 2006, its net profits after taxes went up by 32%.

IUF’s report also shows that Tata Tea is also following the same policy – of disinvesting in plantations. It has reduced its employees from 1999-2006 by 25,864. Its payments to workers have come down by Rs.40 crores from 2001 to 2006. However its profits during this period increased by Rs.86 crores, up by 87%, showing that almost half its profits (Rs.40 crores) came from a decrease in payments made to workers. Even more shocking and glaring in comparison to the plight of tea workers are the profits that Tata Tea has made by buying and selling US health drink maker Glaceau. Tata Tea bought this company in August 2006 and sold it in May 2007. In a period of just nine months it has made a profit of Rs.2144 crores – enough to pay its entire workforce for the next 17 years!

What we are seeing then is a restructuring of the tea industry- the larger companies are moving away from plantations through selling them or transferring them. They are instead concentrating on brand names and selling of manufactured products. The place of production for tea is no longer important- it does not matter whether one is growing Assam tea or Doars tea. What matters is the brand – Tata Tea, Brooke Bond, Red Label etc. and it is possible that the larger players now buy their tea from anywhere in the world and package and sell it in their brand name. The possession of plantations is therefore no longer relevant to them.

Many other players in the tea industry have allowed their plantations to deteriorate through lack of investment. When the boom years were on, many owners and companies took money out of tea and invested it elsewhere. Factories were allowed to deteriorate, tea bushes were allowed to become older and older without replanting. One hears many stories in the Doars of employers who have used bank loans and money given for repalnting by the Tea Board for replanting in sectors other than tea.

The entire industry is being restructured- small growers are becoming more important, bought leaf factories are being allowed to proliferate and there is very little initiative to see that new laws or old laws like the Plantation Labour Act apply to the workers in these new enterprises.

At the bottom end of this spectrum are the workers in closed and abandoned tea gardens- the victims of the restructuring of the industry for whom no safety net is available, who suffer the worst consequences of this restructuring while some companies reap huge profits. The plight of these workers is also used as a threat for workers in open gardens. The general feeling amongst workers in open gardens is  “if we crib too much about our working conditions, the garden could close down. So let’s all keep our mouths shut”. Closure thus leads not only to the suffering of workers in closed gardens – it has also become an instrument fro the oppression of workers in open gardens.

The Government’s Role

The irresponsibility of Government is very visible in this entire process. They have allowed owners and large companies to reap huge profits with little plough back for development and workers’ welfare. They have also allowed employers to run away with workers’ money.  Till September 2005, in 22 gardens that had been closed in 2004 in Jalpaiguri district or were still closed, workers’ dues were Rs.36.62 crores. The Government has taken few or no steps to recover this huge amount (equivalent to 17 months of wages for all workers in closed gardens). These dues include even workers’ contributions- money that employers have deducted from workers’ salaries as payment toward Provident Fund, but which they have later not deposited with the Provident Fund Commissioner. This is in spite of the fact that existing laws like the Provident Fund Act and the Tea Act have sufficient provision for the Government to take stringent measures against recalcitrant employers. Thus under Section 8B of the PF Act, the authorised officer has the power to arrest and detain the employer; attach and sell his moveable and immovable property; and, appoint a receiver for the management of the movable and immovable property of the employer or establishment. The Tea Act also has clear provisions under Section 16D for the takeover of estates that are not running properly and/or are not paying due wages to the employees. It is in fact after 7 years of the crisis that the Minister for Commerce, Shri Jairam Ramesh has talked of using the Tea Act against owners.

The State Government was also pushed by the Supreme Court in January 2004 to provide relief measures to the workers. The State Government by an affidavit in the Supreme Court assured that it had extended facilities for BPL families to all permanent workers in closed estates. It also began a system of providing subsidised Antodaya Anna Yojana rations, work under Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (and now National Rural Employment Guarantee Act or NREGA) to the workers, facilities to children and mothers under the ICDS and the midday meal scheme, drinking water and medical facilities. In addition Rs. 500 per month (now Rs.750) is also being provided. There have been regular reviews almost once every six months of the implementation of the Supreme Court orders. These reviews reveal innumerable problems in the implementation of the schemes- irregularity and delays in giving the benefits lead to considerable suffering amongst workers. What is however even more important is calculations show that even if these orders were implemented with a 100% efficiency and if, along with Government schemes, workers were to get at least 100 days of plucking work in the peak season, workers would be earning only Rs.380 per capita per month, which is well below the poverty line.

Reopening

Workers themselves have always expressed dissatisfaction with the relief schemes and have wanted instead their gardens to be reopened. There has also been a great deal of talk recently about a tea revival package by the Central Government and Shri Jairam Ramesh has also been speaking of re-opening of abandoned gardens. While re-opening should be welcomed, one must also learn from the experience of 2005 when re-opening led to a reduction of closed gardens from 22 in 2004 to only 6.

Only one in the 9 re-opening agreements that PBKMS examined in 2005 during its study, was there an agreement to repay dues. A review done by PBKMS in December 2006 show that even a year and a half after re-opening, the situation was largely unchanged. If we are not to make a total joke of the rights of workers, clearing of all past dues must be one of the pre-conditions for re-opening of any garden by a private owner. One cannot expect workers to forego money that ahs been deducted from their wages and has been siphoned off by owners instead of depositing with the PF Commissioner. It is not necessary here that the new owner should be liable for this- legal action against the old owner could form a part of the actions taken for re-opening.

Also, in 2005, fly by night financiers and middlemen were often the ones who re-opened the gardens. Estates were opened only during the plucking season. Little development work was done. Closed gardens are thus being sucked dry by such rogue employers. Any new private employer must therefore begin uprooting, new re-plantation and other development work from the start of taking over a garden. A plan for development must thus form an essential part of any re-opening agreement.

The general practice is also for tri-partite meetings for re-opening to take place far away from the garden in the presence of a few trade union representatives alone. There is great resentment amongst workers in general about not being consulted when agreements for re-opening of gardens take place. All re-opening agreements must therefore be finalised after a consultation with a general assembly of all workers in a garden, even if such agreements are provisionally approved by trade union leaders in tri- partite meetings beforehand.

In some gardens (for example, Shikarpur and Raipur) workers through the Operating and Managing Committee have invested their hard earned wages for new plantation and development of the garden. If such gardens are handed over to private employers, all such money spent by the workers should be returned to them before re-opening.

In gardens such as Shikarpur, workers’ cooperatives are in a nascent stage. Workers have had a fair amount of success in running these gardens without an employer. In fact, they have been more responsible about the development of the garden and the welfare of the workers than any previous employer. The success of Durgabari TE in Tripura also shows that with proper State support, workers can run closed gardens very well. It would therefore be wise that in all cases where there are workers’ cooperatives or nascent coopertives, such cooperatives must be given the first preference in the handing over of the garden for re-opening. Support, (financial, legal and technical) must be extended to such workers’ cooperatives by the Government.

Immediate measures

Re-opening must be a long drawn procedure if one is to do it in a manner that is sustainable. A study of each garden’s viability and a proper plan for its re-opening must be made. There should be a clear prediction of how the capital needed to develop it will be arranged and how workers’ dues will be paid. All this requires careful planning, in which it is essential that the Government takes an active role in order to safeguard the future of the workers.

The immediate future however asks for gardens to be running and providing sufficient work and income to the workers if we are to prevent further deaths. A possibility for this is to immediately expand the work under NREGA through provision of funds from the State Government’s exchequer. The West Bengal Government, to show that it is genuinely concerned with the plight of tea workers should guarantee 200 days of work to workers of closed tea gardens. On 31^st March 2007, 14 gardens were closed with 16,900 workers affected. This would therefore involve an extra expenditure of about Rs.16.90 crores per year (Rs.100 per day for wages and materials x 100 days x 16,900 workers) and would be well within the reach of the State Government. If possible, part of the wages in this scheme should be provided in food grains at BPL prices to ensure food security. One component of the above scheme could be to use the person days provided to do pruning and other developmental works that are so far being neglected due to lack of funds with the garden level OMCs. In order to ensure that Government funds are not used to enhance the assets of private tea garden owners, development work could be undertaken only in gardens where leases have lapsed or have been cancelled.

Along with this what we need is good monitoring of what is happening in the closed gardens. Systems of early warning that inform the administration about crises and untimely deaths in all closed gardens must be put in place. In order to ensure that relief schemes reach the beneficiaries in a timely manner, the administration had for a short period started a system of having one deputy magistrate in charge of one closed garden. This should be continued and visits by the deputy magistrate periodically should be undertaken. Complaints books under NREGA and as per Supreme Court orders must be made available at all levels and regular hearings by these deputy magistrates on complaints must be conducted.

We have expressed enough shock about the deaths in tea gardens. We have debated enough about whether the deaths were due to starvation or not. Let us put this all behind us and now begin to see that closed gardens become economically viable entities that provide their workers with a decent standard of living.

A Report on People's Uprising in Nandigram

 (Sources: Different News papers and websites)

On 7 January 2007, 8 villagers (not confirmed) were killed and at least 20 people were seriously wounded in overnight clashes between local peasants resisting land acquisition and some 'outsider' cadres of the ruling party (CPI-M) in Nandigram of East Midnapore district, West Bengal though the opposition party leaders and local people's organisation for protection of farmland claimed 11 casualties. An industrial zone is to be built in Nandigram with help from Indonesian conglomerate the Salim Group, but the project has faced strong resistance from the farmers refusing to give up their land.

In the wee hours of the 7th morning (Sunday) at Sonachura village, Nandigram-1 Block there was bombing and firing, where about 8 people died including a 13 year old boy named Biswajit Maity. Villagers alleged that a gang of hooligans of  CPI(M) dressed in police uniforms, threw bombs and fired many gunshots at villagers patrolling on the other side of the Sonachura Bhangabera Bridge over the Talpati Canal. Local people asserted the attack was organised by the CPI(M) goons who started throwing bombs from across the river at Khejuri-2 towards Nandigram.

Most of those killed and injured were members of the newly-formed "Bhoomi Uchched Pratirodh Committee" (Committee to Resist Eviction from Land) that is leading the movement against forcible land acquisition. It was reported that 4 of those who died were Bharat Mondal (Sonachura), Biswajit Maity (Soudkhali Purbapalli), Sk. Salim (Uttarpara, 7 No. Jalpai) and Shankar Samanta (Son of Sudhansu Samanta, Sonachura). The last one was a CPI(M) leader assassinated by the villagers to take revenge of mass killings. Kolkata TV, a Bengali news channel, showed footage of a bullet-riddled Bharat Mandal (28), a member of the Bhumi Uchched Pratirodh Committee (BUPC), collapsing. He was taken to a medical facility in a rickshaw van but died early Sunday. Bharat had two daughters and a son. Bodies of the dead and the injured were brought to the Nandigram Block Hospital. Two other victims, Anukul Mondal and Nishikanta Barman were seriously injured and moved to SSKM Hospital. Villagers and police both failed to throw light on death toll and the persons missing since 7th midnight.

After the massacre about 5 thousand local people set the CPI(M) camp at Satkhanda in Khejuri-2 block and the house of a local CPI-M leader, Mr Sudhansu Samanta, ablaze. The police remained mute spectators, not entering into the strife torn villages despite the violence. But a large contingent of police patrolled the outskirts of the village and was watching the situation very closely. Mr Arun Gupta, IG (Western Range) pleaded inaccessibility citing dug-up roads and said the presence of policemen in Nandigram would only add fuel to the fire. Director-general of police (Midnapore range) Mr NR Babu echoed Mr Arun Gupta when he pleaded inaccessibility. He said, “Armed villagers are patrolling the fringes and we feared violence in case police try to move in.” However, the Rapid Action Force was deployed in Nandigram after the violence even as other party leaders of Left Front demanded an immediate meeting of the Front to discuss the situation. Since police failed to enter the villages, it could not be confirmed if the violence had claimed more lives.

The problem started on the 3rd of January 2007. With the Singur fire still blazing, violence exploded again over a project for Indonesia's Salim Group when police lathi-charged and fired several rounds on villagers gathered to protest against acquisition of their farmlands at Nandigram. 4 villagers including a 15 year old boy were injured in the firing. Then the livid mass set on fire a police jeep and 9 police men were wounded.

After Singur, the Left Front Government of West Bengal is now going to grab around 22,500 acres agricultural and homestead  land in Nandigram of East Midnapore district for construction of a multi-product SEZ (Special Economic Zone) and a mega Chemical Hub. On 31 July 2006, the West Bengal government signed an agreement with the Salim Group of Indonesia (well known as anti-trade union and anti-worker employers under the Suharto regime)  for this purpose. Construction of a four-lane road bridge over the Haldi River linking between Haldia port and the proposed SEZ in Nandigram  had also been planned.

Nandigram (about 150 km from Kolkata near the Haldia port town) is a minority dominated area (61% Muslim community) and traditionally has been a left citadel, voting time and again for successive Left Front Governments in the state. The Nandigram assembly seat is held by the CPI while the Haldia Lok Sabha seat belongs to the CPI(M). In last Panchayat election CPI(M) won 55 seats and CPI got 20 seats in total 136 seats of Nandigram-1 block. In total 23 seats of Panchayat Samity, 16 seats belong to the left parties. But faced with the apprehension of losing their land and abode to proposed SEZ, thousand of villagers have now organised themselves into a single body to resist the looming land acquisition.

Since last year, peasants and fishermen communities of Nandigram are strongly opposing such despotic acquisition of farmland and homestead land. They formed two independent people's organisations named "Gana Unnayan and Jana Adhikar Sangram Samity" (Association for Mass Development and People's Rights)  and "Krishi Jami O Janaswartha Raksha Committee" (Committee for protection of agricultural lands and public interest) to protect their life and livelihoods.[1] On the last week of December, 2006 a meeting was called up by CPI(M) MP Mr. Lakshman Seth at Chanditala to convince the local people in favour of land acquisition. But the villagers strongly raised their voice of protest against this autocratic decision of the government. On 7th of last month, social activist Medha Patkar along with Swapan Ganguly, General Secretary of PBKMS and other activists visited the area to support the villagers resisting the acquisition.

On  2nd January 2007, Mr. Lakshman Seth, the Chairman of Haldia Development Authority (HDA) and CPI(M) MP, officially declared that in the first phase of the land acquisition about 14,500 acres of land of 27 moujas of Nandigram-1 block and 2 moujas of Khejuri-2 block would be acquired. It was also announced that the land of Nandigram block would be acquired shortly since the Salim Group would build a mega Chemical Hub (10,000 acres) and another industrialist group of Pawan Ruia would set up a Shipbuilding and repairing unit (2500 acres) there. The rest of the land (2000 acres) would be used for disposal of alluvium dredged from the river bed of Haldia Port. Mr. Seth reported that the list of earmarked moujas had already been sent to the concerned Gram Panchayats. The notice mentioned the names of 29 moujas at the Nandigram-1 and Khejuri-2 blocks that had primarily been sort listed for the Salim-promoted chemical hub.

The notice fuelled rumours that district magistrate Mr. Anup Agarwal would visit personally to acquire the land. A large number of  villagers assembled at Kalicharanpore No. 9 Gram Panchayat office of Garchakraberia in Nandigram on 3rd January to express and their refusal to part with their land. But their outrage and protest action was responded by atrocious manhandling and straightforward violation of human rights by the Left Front Government police. The villagers alleged that the left party Panchayat pradhan Samerun Biwi called the police and the protesters were brutally assaulted at Bhuta More nearly 100 meter away from the Panchayat office when they were on a peaceful rally. After being assailed the unarmed villagers of Sonachura, Osmanchak, Jalpai, Garchakraberia and other villages resisted the police to protect themselves. The villagers damaged all the roads and bridges as well as blocked the roads with boulders and tree trunks to prevent the police force entering the village. The villagers including a large number of women started patrolling the locality with staves, brooms, sickles, swords, and other weapons to prevent the entry of policemen. Sensing trouble, the police remained restraint for the time being.

Meanwhile, Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya claimed that no notification had yet been issued for land acquisition in Nandigram. Home Secretary Mr. Prasad Ranjan Roy also stated that it was deliberate rumour.

Tension prevailed in Nandigram while a local CPI(M) office at Rajaramchak was ransacked on the 5th January by the excited villagers. Some of the CPI(M) leaders have fled the villages, while much of their rank and file joined the anti-land acquisition movement. Following 3rd January's incident, the CPI(M) workers set up 'check posts' at places on way to Nandigram to 'scrutinise' the entry of people even though the administration has not yet imposed Section 144 CrPC. Even the Journalists alleged that they were stopped at a distance of 9 km from Nandigram by the CPI(M) cadres who 'patrolled' the area.

On 6th January, 2007 Saturday, at least 22 mass organisations formed the "Bhumi Ucched Pratirodh Committee" (BUPC) to prevent any move to acquire land for the proposed project by the Salim group and the state government even as CPI(M) activists flexed their muscles and drew a battle line with the irate farmers and residents.

In the meantime, the CPI(M) formed a no. of camps that surround the protesting villages. The villages are in four Gram Panchayats namely Garchakraberia, Soudkhali, Kalicharanpur and Sonachura, and have a population of about 60-70,000 people. Arms were being amassed in each of these camps. The plan was clearly one of "cleansing" the villages of dissenters. The CPI(M) seemed to be going about this in an organised manner. On the 6th, it was reported that Sushanto Ghosh, one of the CPI (M) Ministers, and Lakshman Seth, the MP from Haldia, gave provocative speeches in the area, exciting their members to take action on those opposing acquisition.

Sushanto Ghosh has the dubious reputation of masterminding the CPI(M) operation to convert "Keshpur", an area with a number of TMC supporters into a CPI(M) stronghold in 2000 through "cleansing" operations using anti-socials and cadres. Lakshman Seth has been one of the strongest proponents of industrialisation in Haldia and has been active in helping in forcible land acquisition. In fact it is memories of this acquisition from which people in Haldia suffered a great deal that is making the people of neighbouring Nandigram very wary of the Government's policies.

In middle of all these, to add fuel to fire Benoy Konar, the President of the Krishak Sabha [the Peasant wing of CPI(M)] gave statements to the press. In an article in Bartaman, January 7, 2007 titled "Chardik Theke ghire palta mar dewa hobe, Benoy Konarer Hunkar" ( We’ll surround from four sides and hit back, Benoy Konar’s threat) he said that “ora astra niye ele amra ki chup kore thakbo?Darkar hole oder dakhale thaka charti gram panchayate elaka chardike theke ghire fele jiban jerar kore debo. Tokhon ora moja ter pabe.”  (If they bring weapons shall we stay quiet? If necessary then we’ll surround from all sides all the four gram panchayats and make life hell for them. Then they will understand the fun.)

“Ora lathi niye ele kintu ebar amrao lathi hatei ta rukhbo” (If they bring sticks then we’ll also take up sticks to stop them)

“ … Amra onek sanjamer parichay dichchi. Keshpureo Trinamul eyi line niyechilo. Shesh porjonto okhane je fal hoyechilo ta sabai dekheche..” ( We have shown a lot of tolerance. In Keshpur Trinamul had taken this line. In the end everybody saw what the result was.)

CPI(M) district Secretary, Ashoke Guria  reflected the words and thoughts of Benoy Konar. when he said on 5th that "if they pick up weapons and unleash terror than can we be quiet? There will be a political resistance. We have shown enough tolerance. But we have to think of how long we are going to remain quiet.". Local party sources said that Rabiul Hossein and Khejuri Panchayat Samity president Himanshu Das had been given in charge of the cadre force in the camps.

The family members of the martyrs who were killed in violence here as well as those whose houses and shops were ransacked by the offenders had identified 4 men who once had struck terror at Keshpur. Seikh Rabiul Islam, Kebal Das, Satya Das and Shankar Patra whom the villagers of Sonachura believed to be leaders of the CPI(M)’s “cadre bahini” were seen wielding weapons from neighbouring Khejuri block across the Talpati bridge and targeting innocent members and supporters of the BUPC early on 7th morning.

According to Mr Narayan Bhunia, a resident of Sonachura village, the CPI(M)’s “cadre bahini” had been assembling at some houses in Khejuri about seven days back. They were also carrying weapons that included automatic firearms and stocking them at these houses. On 7th January, in the shadow of the midnight these armed men allegedly crossed over from Satkhanda of Khejuri-2 Block to Sonachura via the Bhangabera bridge and took shelter at the house of Shankar Samanta, a member of the CPI(M) controlled Sonachura 10 number Gram Panchayat. Mr Pranab Manna, another eyewitness to that incident, said the armed men started firing indiscriminately at a peaceful gathering of the BUPC that led to the deaths of 3 people. “We could only throw some stones in retaliation as we don’t have any firearms here. As day broke, we could identify Rabiul, Kebal, Satya and Shankar as they kept firing on us from Shankar Samanta’s house,” he said.

Soon after these men of Keshpur fame fled, an angry mob attacked Shankar Samanta’s house and set it ablaze. Shankar Samanta died from burns. The mob also attacked the house of Mr Lakshman Mondal, the pradhan of the panchayat but he escaped somehow. The mob ransacked the house and had reportedly seized a revolver from his house.

However, local CPI (M) leaders refuted the allegations of "carrying out an attack" on the villagers and claimed that the peasants supported by the rival TMC workers 'lynched' their party-members. CPI(M) district Secretary Ashoke Guria said, "Trinamul workers have kidnapped some of our party members".

Chief minister Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee blamed the Jamiyet-E-Ulemae-Hind for resorting to a “communal campaign” to incite violence in Nandigram. He said: “Quite a few political parties, including Trinamul Congress, Congress, SUCI and Naxalites joined the (anti-land acquisition) campaign to spread confusion. Jamiyet in particular started an ugly communal campaign. This (six deaths) is an unfortunate incident, no matter activists of which party perished in the clash.”

The Left Front Chairman Mr. Biman Bose said his combine would oppose the bandh as he believed the violence at Nandigram since 3 January was the handiwork of the Trinamul, Naxalites and the SUCI.

On 7th January, the affected villages were visited by a group of leaders from all important political parties and various mass organisations. Mr. Swapan Ganguly from PBKMS was also part of this delegation. They met Arun Gupta,  IG (Western range) who was also in charge of police operations in Singur, Anup Agarwal, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of police. They asked the police to see that peace is restored in the area and that cases are filed against the murderers of the 8 people who were killed and against those making provocative statements.

The police had not entered the area to give protection to any of the aggrieved parties. Instead it organised a meeting with all political parties opposing the acquisition on the 6th January, where all the parties and important groups (Trinamul, Congress , SUCI, Jamiet-E-Ulemae-Hind and CPI(ML)Liberation) promised to maintain peace in the area, while the police agreed to not go in.

Nandigram turned into a combat zone as villagers blew conch shells and moved with swords, sickles and staves sounding a bugle of war against the CPI(M) and the state administration following the move to get hold of land for the SEZ. The situation has remained explosive since then, prompting Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya and the CPI(M) to go on the back foot even as the Left Front constituent parties like CPI, RSP, and Forward Block criticised the government for its land acquisition policies.

BUPC called a 24-hour bandh at Nandigram on 7th while SUCI called another bandh in the area on 9th in protest against CPI(M) violence on the farmers whose land was being grabbed for the proposed industrial project of the Salim group. The Congress and the SUCI also called for a 24-hour bandh in Bengal on 8th, while the Trinamool, CPI (ML) Liberation and BJP separately called for a 12-hour state-wide bandh in West Bengal on the same day to protest CPI(M) atrocities on political opponents at Nandigram and killings of poor farmers.

6 activists of CPI(ML) Liberation, including students of Jadavpur University and New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), were arrested from Nandigram after the flare-up. The party alleged that the police falsely incriminated their workers who had gone there for fact finding. CPI(ML) Liberation demanded arrest of CPI(M) leaders Benoy Konar and Lakshman Seth for issuing provocative statements.

On 8th January, stray incidents of violence marked the All Bengal Strike called by the oppositions in the state. Normal life was disrupted and the situation continued to remain tense at Nandigram. Locals there continued round-the-clock vigilance to check further infiltration. Violence continued as men armed with automatic firearms and dressed in black had started firing in the early hours on 8th and the villagers set a CPI(M) office ablaze at Bhekutia, Dinabondhupur around 6 A.M. at dawn. It was alleged that a shop owned by a local CPI(M) leader was also ransacked by the mob. The villagers chased a police troop at Dinabandhupur when they tried to enter the village. Officer in Charge of  Nandigram PS Mr. Shyamal Roy had been transferred and it was reported that Panskura OC Mr Shekhar Roy would take over from him.

Sporadic incidents of violence were reported across all districts of South Bengal with at least 5 people, including a woman, injured in Fakirbazar area near Shibpur in Howrah, after bandh supporters allegedly threw a petrol bomb on a packed Shibpur-bound SBSTC bus around 2 p.m. 11 more people were injured in 3 separate clashes between bandh supporters and their rivals in Kadambagachi and Duttapukur in North 24-Parganas and in Bhangar in South 24-Parganas, respectively. In Durgapur, police lathicharged a Congress-led procession near Bhiringhee while a CPI(ML)office was allegedly set on fire by some CPI(M)-backed activists at Pandaveswar.

In north Bengal, 11 people were hurt in two separate clashes between SUCI and CPI(M) supporters at Gosanimari and Chengrabandha in Cooch Behar while police lathicharged bandh supporters in Malda district. The bandh also affected life in Jalpaiguri, North and South Dinajpur and Darjeeling districts.

In Kolkata, bandh supporters clashed with police at Hazra crossing. Police lathi-charged on the rally of Bandh supporters. Streets wore a deserted look with only state-run buses and trams plying. In all, 373 people, including 37 women, were arrested in Kolkata. Some state and private buses were damaged and roadblocks were put up near Hazra, Kidderpore, Gariahat, Maniktala, Palmer Bazar and Entally. Train services, in both South Eastern Railway and the Eastern Railway divisions, were disrupted.

On 8th January, an all-party meeting called by the district administration was held at Tamluk. Representatives of all political parties and the administration agreed on four points: 1) any government notice on land acquisition will be issued only after discussions with all political parties; 2) there must not be any political camp within a 5 km radius of the trouble-prone area; 3) roads will be repaired at the earliest to make the villages accessible and; 4) the points of agreement will be announced all over the district. After this meet police and paramilitary personnel from five districts started camping at the border of Nandigram.

Meanwhile, Khokan Shit, a Sonachura resident, was arrested by Thekhali outpost police while accompanying a cameraman. Members of the BUPC met the IG (Western Range) and demanded Khokan be released forthwith. They said his detention would further antagonise the Nandigram villagers.

Shri Biman Bose, Chairman of the Left Front made a statement on 8^th January, 2007 which was telecast by 24 Ghanta, ETV and other channels. He had stated that the violent events in Nandigram were planned on 3^rd December 2006 during a meeting at the four storied house of one Tapan Khatua (Son of Manas Khatua) in Nandigram in the presence of Medha Patkar.

But the truth is Medha was arrested from Singur on 2^nd December 2006 and spent the night of the 2^nd and most of 3^rd December in a police van at Hungerford Street. She was in Kolkata on 3rd night and on the 4^th left from Howrah in the morning to be arrested once again on her way to Singur at 11.30 on the 4^th December 2006. In fact, Medha Patkar was followed by the police all through out her visit in Kolkata from the 2^nd to the 10^th of December 2006. Moreover, Medha Patkar is known as a non violent Gandhian. This is one more instance where Shri Bose is using lies to cover up the autocratic and brutal actions of his party and their Government to suppress people’s movements.

National Alliance of People’ Movements (NAPM) of which Medha Patkar is a very important member condemned this malicious statement. On 9th in a press release they said "This is just one more untruth from Shri Biman Bose and members of his party , where they are following Goebbels’ policy in Hitler’s Germany of repeating lies again and again in order to turn them into beliefs". They also condemned the repeated attempts by Mr. Biman Bose to perpetrate untruths. Later on, a case of defamation was filed against him.

On 9th January, in a major climb-down, chief minister Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee conceded “it was a mistake” on part of the Haldia Development Authority to have issued a notice for acquisition of land at Nandigram and instructed the district magistrate to “tear it up”. Mr Bhattacharjee said the HDA notice “created all confusion” even before land acquisition could start at Nandigram. The CM was also categorical that no land-mapping would begin at Nandigram before talking to villagers “down to the grassroots level” and explaining to them every aspect of the project.

In Nandigram an uneasy tranquil prevailed as police failed to make peace with the BUPC and the trouble-torn area continued to remain beyond administrative control. On 9th January, fresh violence was reported in the evening. An unidentified man was allegedly assaulted by the villagers in Soudkhali, near Garhchakraberia after a few blasts in the village around 9 p.m. The villagers, who claimed the man was an "outsider", found him near the spot where the bombs exploded. He was held captive by the villagers and then handed over to local police.

Superintendent of Police, East Midnapore, Mr. Ashok Dutta said police did not push in because discussions with the agitating activists had ended in a stalemate and things still remained tense. Police Officers came clean that any attempt to edge into the tense villages would foment trouble as the villagers consider police to be government agents. Local leaders were urged by the SP to pacify villagers and try to bring back peace to the area. Police was compelled to release Khokon Shit arrested on 8th.

Mr Bhabani Prasad Das, a member of the BUPC said: “Some men sneaked into Char-Kendamari village from the Haldia side and torched the betel plantation of Mr Chandan Bhuian.” A Sonachura resident alleged: “Around 1 a.m, a few men inched up to Gangra near Jellingham project in a boat and hurled a few bombs.” Policemen set camp in Dinabondhupur, Tekhali and Bhangabhera.

On 9th January, Industries Secretary of West Bengal Mr Sabyasachi Sen said that the chemical hub, was “actually” the initiative of the Union petroleum and chemicals ministry which wants to set up a petrochemical and petroleum investment region (PCPIR) in one of the coastal, sea-faring states. Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal were considered. A task-force was formed by the Prime Minister’s Office which finally chose Haldia and Dahej in Gujarat for the project because of its location, connectivity and resources. According to the PCPIR policy, the hub is to be built on 250 sq km or about 62,000 acres of land, while 40 per cent of the area, which comes to about 25,000 acres, is earmarked for the manufacturing zone. Mr. Sen tried to explain that the zone is to be given the status of an SEZ so that investors can be given special incentives without which, such a huge area can’t be developed before actual manufacturers step in. The Haldia Development Authority, according to him, was asked to make a survey of land in 17 moujas of Nandigram for subsequent acquisition. The HDA has no authority to acquire land which is vested with the district collector. Obviously, lack of preparations and the failure of the state government to allay fears of farmers who would be displaced led to the fiasco over the survey. The policy, it is now being emphasised, is not to touch dwelling units and places of worship. Nor is it imperative to acquire continuous land for the project. “Land can be fragmented and different plots can be linked, if needed, by laying new roads,” Mr Sen said.

On 9th January CPI(M) cadres and police brutally assaulted a group of college students when they were on rally at A. J. C. Bose Road near CPI(M) office at Alimuddin Street, Kolkata in protest against the carnage at Nandigram. They were intercepted before they could reach the CPI(M) headquarters. Eleven students were arrested and were taken to Lalbazar. The students had gathered at Moulali crossing around 3 p.m. under the banner of "Chhatrachatri  Samhati Mancha", a new outfit representing several student bodies owing allegiance to different political organisations. There were several students from Presidency College and Jadavpur University

On 10th January, police for the first time ventured into Nandigram as few roads were repaired overnight in view of the NDA delegation’s visit. But the villages continued to retain detached as roads were dug up and blockades were put back in place as the NDA delegation left Nandigram.

A meeting between the SDO, Haldia and members of the BUPC that went on till late night ended in a stalemate. The members of the committee said if the state government does not issue a notification proclaiming that they would not acquire any land at Nandigram immediately, then they would intensify their movement in the area. Mr Shankar Halder, SDO, Haldia, stated that they would begin repairing roads leading to Nandigram as soon as peace is restored in the entire area.

In the meantime, a new forum under aegis of CPI(M)’s farmers’ wing, Krishak Sabha, was formed that would begin campaigning in favour of land acquisition and the proposed SEZ in Nandigram. Mr Ashok Guria, district Krishak Sabha leader, said that this committee known as "Krishi o Shilpo Unnoyan Samiti"  had been formed to make people of Nandigram understand the need of the SEZ here.

Even in the midst of such a turmoil at Nandigram over acquisition of farm land for setting up the mega chemical hub, the Salim Group reaffirmed its commitment to implement all its projects - the SEZ at Nandigram, Haldia and building roads and bridges at Kukrahati and Baruipur. Mr Prasun Mukherjee, a partner of the consortium led by the Salim Group, met Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee on 10^th and discussed the projects. He said the group had left it to the state government to acquire land for the SEZ and would await the realignment of the land.

Tension persisted at Nandigram as another all-party meeting to find a solution ended in a stalemate on 11th January. Reports of armed CPI(M) cadres mobilising near the Khejuri side of the trouble-torn area infused fear in the villagers who had taken to patrolling wielding bamboo sticks.

Earlier on 11th, a meeting between the Nandigram BDO and representatives of the BUPC proved fruitless yet again with the administration insisting that the villagers first allow the government to repair roads and bridges damaged in the recent violence. Representatives of BPUC walked out of the meeting demanding the administration first ensure that all political camps be removed from a 5-km radius of the trouble-prone area. Since a CPI(M) camp was yet to be shifted out of the specified sphere, they said they would not allow the administration to start repair work.

CPI(M) MP Mr Lakhshman Seth visited Khejuri to attend the funeral of Shankr Samanta, a CPI(M) gram panchayat member of Sonachura who was killed in the violence on 7th morning. Mr Seth accused the Trinamul Congress of having fed the people wrong ideas of industrialisation and creating an environment of terror. .

On 12 January, a public meeting against state government's unfair policy of land acquisition and CPI(M) terror was organised by BUPC at Hazrakata in Nandigram. Around 12 thousand people from the surrounding locality assembled at the meeting. Social activist Medha Patkar, Swami Agnibesh of Bandhua Mazdoor Mukti Morcha, Anuradha Talwar, President of PBKMS, Prof. Meher Engineer, Shishir Adhikari, TMC MLA of Egra and other representatives from SUCI, Congress, Janata Dal Secular and Jamiet-E-Ulemae Hind addressed the gathering. Medha Patkar accused the Salim group which is going to set up the proposed SEZs of being a corrupt company. She said that this group is the one which had murdered Communist party members in Indonesia for purely business reasons and now they are joining hands with the Communist ruled state to set up business. She dared the chief minister and the CPI(M) state leadership to visit Nandigram and tell villagers that they would acquire land here.

As the land acquisition issue turned the tide against CPI(M) in Nandigram which had been a stronghold of the Left Front for years, the CPI(M) state secretariat drafted a plan on 13th January to carry out an extensive campaign from 15th January to 28th February in districts earmarked for new industrial projects to win back confidence of farmers and generate public opinion in favour of their new industrial policy. It was decided that a pamphlet would also be circulated in villages and urban areas. The schedule of this campaign was finalised at Alimudin Street where Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee and the party’s state secretary, Mr. Biman Bose, met leaders from East Midnapore and South 24-Parganas for more than five hours. It was learnt that Mr. Dipak Sarkar, one of the CPI(M) state secretariat members would be given the responsibility to look after the developments in East Midnapore thereby clipping the wings of Mr. Lakhsman Seth.

In an all-party meeting convened by the SDO at Nandigram, it was decided that the roads and the bridges would be repaired at the earliest. Mr Sankar Halder, SDO Haldia, requested the Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC) members to motivate villagers to help the administration.

But the initiatives of the administration to repair roads, bridges and bring back normalcy in the tension torn areas in Nandigram failed again as the Anti-land acquisition movement workers refused to cooperate till the administration gave word that land acquisition would be completely stalled. After 24 hours of the all-party meeting none of the oppositions and BUPC members came up to help out the administration. As a result the Nandigram stalemate continued to persist, adding to the worries of the administration.

On 14th January, the local people of Vekutia area cancelled the 300-year-old Pous Sankranti mela (fair) at Basulimata temple near Dinabandhupur in Nandigram, as it was not the time to celebrate.

On 14^th CPI(M) began their “political process” by "going to the villagers at the grassroots". The party launched its campaign to explain to the people the need for industrialisation with its state secretary, Mr Biman Bose addressing a public meeting at Tamluk. Mr. Bose also attended a closed-door party meeting at Sutahata in Haldia with all the leaders and local committee members of the district to boost the confidence of the party members. The CPI(M) also initiated damage-control measures to restore confidence in the party following the people's uprising and unrest in Nandigram. It was announced that CPI(M) would observe 27^th January as Nandigram Dibas (Nandigra Day) all over the state to protest against the killings. The party would be campaigning throughout the region based on the points mentioned in the mandate of their last legislative Assembly election, handing out lakhs of pamphlets during the months of January and February to reach out to the common people.

Villagers of tension-torn areas in Nandigram persisted in their non-cooperation with the district administration over mending of roads and bridges with the BUPC insisting on a notice from the government stating that “no land will be acquired in Nandigram”. On 16th January, BUPC leaders held a meeting to chalk out the future outline of the movement that decided to seek the removal of Nandigram from the planning area of Haldia Development Authority, a judicial inquiry into the incidents of 3rd January and 7th January and adequate compensation to the families of the deceased in the incident on 7th January. It was also resolved that a deputation would be submitted to the local block office and police station on 25th.

In East Midnapore, Trinamul supporters blocked roads at Chandipur, Nandigram, Maniktala, Nimtouri, Nandakumar, Contai and other places from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. successfully. They also conducted two meetings at Saudkhali and Kalicharanpur and one at Rayapara in Nandigram. District Trinamul leader and MLA Mr. Subhendu Adhikari said: “Police and administration have initiated cases against Trinamul workers. We shall continue our protest.”

On 16th January CPI(M) state secretary Mr. Biman Bose said Nandigram was the last part of a project that would take eight or ten years to complete. “The project starts from Barasat. Nandigram is at the fag end. No land has been acquired there. The process of acquisition may not even start now. The media is spreading rumours”, Mr Bose said at Alimuddin Street this evening after releasing a pamphlet titled “It's not agricultural versus industry - It's industry on the foundation of agriculture” that would be circulated all over the state.

Asked why the Left Front allies were not taking part in the campaign, Mr Bose said that the decision would be taken at the next meeting of the front. However, he could not say when the meeting would take place.

Police have not been allowed to enter the barricaded areas since tension broke out here on 3rd January. At present, duties of police have been reduced to patrolling tension-torn areas on the roads from Nandigram to Muhammadpur bridge and Nandigram to Tekhali, Bhangabhera.

Arup Das, a Trinamul worker and a prominent representative of BUPC, spearheading the movement against acquisition of land for the proposed SEZ, was hit with sharp weapons by some miscreants at Tengua bazar and died on the spot on 16th midnight. Superintendent of Police, Ashok Dutta said, the deceased was returning to his house in Kandoposhora village at late night after attending a meeting of the Trinamul and the BUPC. Police recovered the body from near his house on 17th early morning. The murder of Arup Das has bred fear in the minds of villagers. They are alleging that miscreants backed by CPI(M) took advantage of the shower last night and committed the murder. However, the villagers seemed ready to continue their anti-land acquisition drive. BUPC called a 12-hour bandh from 6 am on 17th January in protest against the killing. Meanwhile, members of BUPC forwarded a deputation to BDO, Nandigram, demanding a notice of non-acquisition from the government to end tension in the area.

Compiled by: Paschimbanga Khet Majoor Samity

19 January 2007

---

[1] On 6th January 2007 all these committees merged to form the Bhoomi Uchched Pratirodh Committee, (BUPC) with the Trinamul, SUCI, Congress, Jamiyet-E-Ulemae Hind and some Naxalite groups as their members. On 7th. the peasant community of Khejuri formed a union named "Krishi Jami Banchao Committee" (Committee to save agricultural lands) to protect their rights and livelihoods. The committee organised a meeting at Battala, Khejuri in the evening.