The confrontation between Ms Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress and the Left Front government in Singur has gone on for long and has cast a shadow over West Bengal’s industrial future. The Tatas’ threat to pull out the Nano project from Singur underlines the need for any industry to work in a peaceful and secure environment. The Nano project was considered a sign of West Bengal’s industrial revival. Policies and practices unfriendly to the growth of industry had resulted in many industrial units leaving the state and reluctance on the part of entrepreneurs to do business there.  While industrial growth suffered, unemployment and general poverty increased. But the Left Front government has of late made conscious efforts to welcome capital to the state and it was felt that there was a change of climate.

In Singur, the state government cannot be blamed for sacrificing the interests of farmers for the sake of an industrial house. That would have been suicidal for the the CPM, whose strength lies in the support of the rural peasantry. Ms Banerjee’s opposition is apparently driven by politics. The Trinamool Congress performed better than in the past in the recent panchayat elections and the party perhaps wanted to consolidate the gains. Ms Banerjee could also have felt that an issue in which farmers’ interests are ostensibly involved would hurt the Left Front the most. The government has offered a fair deal to the farmers in the form of  a package of financial compensation and alternative land. But Ms Banerjee has taken an uncompromising position which may prolong the confrontation and delay a solution which is in the best interests of the farmers and the state.

The problem of acquisition of farmland and tribal land for industrial purposes has been a matter of debate and cause of many agitations outside West Bengal too. There is no justification for appropriating such lands without adequate compensation, especially because deprivation of land involves not just loss of shelter and means of income but ways of life and even cultural modes. But political and other vested interests should not dictate the terms of the debate and obstruct reasonable solutions to the problem. The nature of solutions may differ from case to case but the overall perspective should be one of accommodation of all interests with least damage to the parties involved. Ms Banerjee unfortunately is bent on inflicting maximum damage on her political adversary and has not taken into consideration the collateral damage the state may suffer in the process.