People's Democracy

THINKING TOGETHER

Since the Left Front government came to power in Bengal, the state's economic performance has been on the decline. Can the people have any hope of better livelihood as long as the state government patronises labour unrest?

--- K L Mehta, Mumbai

THIS is not correct. There is a deliberate disinformation spread about the economic performance of West Bengal under the Left Front rule. This is confirmed by the fact that even the Prime Minister made similar charges recently in Kolkata.  When the Left Front government assumed office in 1977, the poverty ratio in West Bengal was nearly 52 per cent. In 1994, this had come down to 26 per cent, a decline of 4.2 per cent per year. West Bengal thus ranked the first, in poverty reduction, amongst all states in India. Incidentally, the state ranking second is Kerala, with 3.7 per cent decline per year. (Source: India: Policies to Reduce Poverty, World Bank, 2000).  In comparison, the rate for Maharashtra was 2.7 percent and in 1994 43.5 per cent of its population lived in poverty.

Similarly, in terms of annual rates of growth of the gross state domestic product and per capita income, West Bengal's performance is way above the national average.  The following table shows its remarkable performance:

Growth Rates In Major States

1993-94 to 2000-01

(in per cent)

Source:  A Business Standard Commercial Feature on Goa, Gujarat and Maharashtra, June-July, 2003.

Phenomenal advances have been made in the sphere of agriculture during this period, with West Bengal transforming itself from being a chronic heavy food-deficit state into one with surplus. It is today the highest rice producing state in the country. West Bengal contributed nearly 20 per cent of the increase in rice production in the entire country. The yield per hectare has also shown substantial increase. More than 90 per cent of the state's agricultural holdings belong to marginal and small farmers, as a result of the success of Operation Barga.  As a result of the successful implementation of land reforms, noted economist Dr Nilakant Rath, some time ago, analysed that while the growth in per capita net domestic product of the agricultural production between 1981-82 and 1994-95 went up by 22 per cent for the whole of India but in West Bengal it went up by a whopping 70 per cent. In 1981-82, West Bengal was amongst the lowest in the country with its per capita net agricultural product being 18 per cent lower than the all India average. By 1994-95, it was above the all India average by about 10 per cent.

These phenomenal achievements in agriculture have once again validated the position that land reforms are not an exercise meant only to achieve distributive rights. While achieving this they also unleashed rapid leaps in productivity, which go a long way in reducing the overall levels of poverty.

In terms of distributive justice, it merits repetition that nearly 11 lakh acres of agricultural land were distributed amongst the landless. These were illegally held by vested interests in the past. Even if a nominal value of Rs 1lakh per hectare is considered, then the value of the land distributed would be to the tune of  Rs 11,000 crore. Such has been the dimension of asset redistribution in West Bengal in favour of the poor and landless.

However, such performance in agriculture is often contrasted with the so-called lack of industrial development in the state. Apart from the fact that the vast masses of people in West Bengal were and are agriculture dependent and hence the priorities of any pro-people government would be in accordance with this reality, the full story is often ignored. Being the most industrialised state at the time of independence, there was a conscious decision by the Government of India that in order to have a more balanced economic development in the country as a whole, it was necessary to prevent further growth of industries in West Bengal. The licence-permit system ensured that this happened. Further, in order to make investment in West Bengal less lucrative, a policy called freight equalisation was implemented which made production of similar goods in West Bengal more expensive than in other parts of the country. Both these measures deterred the further industrialisation of West Bengal for full four decades after independence. While the first prevented the entry of new industries, the second encouraged the flight of existing industries to outside West Bengal. To attribute this flight of capital merely to "labour unrest" would be too facile.

However, the tremendous strides in reducing poverty have substantially increased the rural market in West Bengal, thereby expanding the domestic demand in the state. This is today the main attraction for investment, which sees profits. Further, the unprecedented decentralisation of democracy with more than 50 per cent of the developmental funds being routed through the panchayats, means a tremendous growth of additional demand in the rural areas. These factors are now contributing to a rapid turnaround in the industrial situation in the state.

Many CPI(M) members do not seem to consider elections as part of class-struggle. Pertinently, the statement issued by the Central Committee of your Party (refer to People’s Democracy, dated June 15) did not mark the significant victory of LF led by CPI(M) in the panchayat election held recently in West Bengal, as a result of class-struggle also. Has not the victory been made possible by virtue of class struggle?

---  Rajib Das, Birati, Kolkata

THE CPI(M), since its inception, has always considered and continues to consider elections as part of the ongoing class struggle in India. It is not  correct to state that the recent magnificent victory of the Left Front for the sixth  successive time in the panchayat elections in West Bengal is not  an expression of class struggle.  The Report on Political Developments adopted by the Central Committee of the CPI(M) in June, 2003 notes: "What was witnessed in the elections was a sharp class struggle with the rural vested interests out to deprive the rural poor of their gains".

The Central Committee communique that you refer to does not use the term `class struggle', but the essence is contained. The communiqué notes that this electoral victory comes on the basis of "the path breaking measures taken in rural Bengal in implementing land reforms and nurturing local democracy through the Panchayat system".  Further, the communiqué states: "The elections saw the combined opposition of the Trinamul-BJP and the Congress trying to dislodge the Left Front from the Panchayat system at the behest of the rural vested interests". 

The struggle between the Left Front and the rural vested interests to control the panchayats is nothing but an expression of the ongoing class struggle.

The CPI(M), as a mass revolutionary party, seeks to combine both parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activities, like  people's struggles, to sharpen the class struggle for an eventual social transformation through a change in the correlation  of class forces amongst the Indian people towards establishing socialism.