Date 3rd Oct 2008 Source: Times of India
Mumbai: Commenting on the land acquisition row in Raigad for the first time, chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh on Thursday denied outright that the state had conducted a ‘referendum’ in the 22 villages in Pen district which have refused to part with land for the Reliance group’s Mumbai special economic zone. Terming it a mere “technical procedure’’, Deshmukh maintained that the state government would not hold a referendum of any kind for land acquisition, not even for SEZs. The CM, who has just returned from a tour to Europe, said the 22 villages in the command area of Hetwane dam were an exception to the normal land acquisition process. “We had already issued orders under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. But later, the amended SEZ Act passed by the Centre clarified that the government would not take over land under the command area of a dam, hence the Raigad district collector called for suggestions and objections in the villages surrounding the Hetwane dam,’’ said Deshmukh. It was a onetime exception, done only because these villages were near a fully completed dam, he added. However, ten days after the Raigad collector conducted the plebiscite; Deshmukh said he was still to get the report. Faced with a volley of questions on the issue, the CM ruled out starting a new practice of holding referendums among villagers. “If any land is required for a public project, the state cannot hold a referendum over it. As for the SEZ, the state will notify the area but leave it to the SEZ developer to settle the acquisition directly with land owners,’’ he clarified. Pushed into a corner over opposition to land deals by members of his own cabinet, Deshmukh gave it a democratic twist. “If Ajit Pawar supported locals opposing the Dow Chemicals unit near Pune, it was in his capacity as a local representative. It does not mean that he deliberately wanted to create problems for the government,’’ he said. Confirming reports that Tata group chairman Ratan Tata had sought an appointment with him, the CM said he would meet the industrialist later this week. “I have just come back from Europe. I will meet him as soon as possible,’’ he added. However, he refused to divulge whether Tata had sought to discuss the Nano issue in particular.
Analysis:
This is a news piece throwing a light on much debated issue of (Special Economic Zones) SEZs. Before discussing about the referendum in Pen on building up Maha-Mumbai Special Economic Zone it is important to look at the issue in brief. The SEZ will cover 5,000 hectares in line with the central government’s new SEZ policy. In Pen, as in the 45 villages are resisting acquisition for the government brokered-SEZ, swords are being sharpened. Notices have been sent to over one lakh landowners. The referendum on the Maha-Mumbai Special Economic Zone being set up by Reliance has been taken and 22 villages in the Pen Tehsil voted against the acquisition of their land was news in many State and National news papers.
On this backdrop the Chief Minister comments that the referendum taken in Pen is not official and added that it was not a referendum but asked for the suggestion of people. This is an example of the conflicting interests existing in the society. The interests of villagers and interests of industrialists are contradictory to each other. This news in addition demonstrates ‘political tactics’ of the governmental official. The Chief Minister is saying that the land can be acquired for ‘public project’. However does not talk about the ‘social cost’s involved in the same.
The crux of an issue is that starting referendum might seems to be a good solution for local people but will it work out in every case? How far it will be transparent? Policy making being a complex process has various dimensions to it. The unintentional outcome of the starting referendum procedure for local issue might start up a parallel process which might not always be transparent. Sometimes it might happen that people get mislead by their political leaders or even by social activists. We can not assume that referendum will assure the coming up of public policy favoring victims or it will not always lead to the best possible solution. What requires here is that of peoples’ participation through setting up a committee, starting peoples’ movement for the victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment