Since I have no evidence to the contrary, skeptical as I may be, I'll take his word for it. But Medha Patkar looked sullen and suspicious. I don't think she believed him. Medha Patkar, though she may be speaking from an idealistic moral ground, is not media savvy. Anand Mahindra is. And in 25 minute program formats, being media savvy is mandatory. Being moralistic is not.

The discussion was not meant to be about Mahindra and Mahindra's record of one model SEZ in Chennai (which Anand Mahindra was nicely able to slug in for a large part of the program) but about Special Economic Zones in India. If land was being acquired voluntarily for SEZ's how could a Nandigram or a Singur ever happen? Incidentally, neither Nandigram nor Singur is ever mentioned in the program. Medha Patkar brought up the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill (which I don't think Miss Nilekani has ever read) and started discussing the inherent problems with it but nobody else seemed interested. Some more head-bobbing and move on for a break.

A look at facts

You cannot have a debate about something as serious as Land Acquisition for SEZ's without discussing what has been done and what is being planned. First some facts. There are over two hundred notified SEZ's in India.

As of 15th May 2008, 222 areas totaling a land mass of about 300 square km have been notified for acquisition under the SEZ act of 2005. Five hundred are planned and the total area for acquisition for the express purpose of SEZ's equals about 1500 square km. The spin machine likes to claim that India has about 3 million square km of land, so SEZ land acquisition amounts to about 0.05% of land mass. That is absolutely true yet completely misleading and dishonest. Exclude the mountains, deserts, cities, towns, all the roads, disputed areas with China and Pakistan, areas of Naxal insurgency, inaccessible areas such as the Sunderbans and the forest cover. Then the picture is completely different. Now add acquisition for other purposes such as dams and military zones. The amount of available land has started looking really small. So land acquisition is a real problem, not an imagined one. It is the classic economic problem of a very limited resource and who lays claim to it.

The Economic argument

The real goal of an SEZ structure is to increase foreign investment. If land is handed over for SEZs, it is often argued, it creates jobs and is more productive. So they are promoted to have a multipier effect on growth. Comprehensive studies of India and China's SEZ's have proven that this is not the case. Results suggest that what contributes to a larger growth is greater scale of liberalization, rather than increasing the number of SEZs. So basically, more an economy opens up, the faster it grows. Having spoken to and heard and read Medha Patkar on many occasions, I know this is a view she shares as well. I'm also sure that Anand Mahindra shares this view. But if SEZs do not contribute significantly to growth and cause so much displacement isn't its promotion more of a free-market ideological exercise?

Now let's look at the job creation and productivity argument. I mean if we are going to brutally displace poor families for the larger public good, the employment generated must be of a much larger magnitude to justify our action. This is not the case. So far the dominant argument in mainstream India has been implying that if adequate compensation is given to the affected parties, there would no problems with SEZs.

Even if I ignore the urban migration to slums of those displaced and its costs borne by all of us, the argument needs to shift from this flawed logic towards the economic viability of SEZs. As of 2004-05 SEZs barely contribute to 5% of exports. Even if this number improves, the concentration of SEZ is towards the IT sector. (This is what Medha means when she says that displaced rural folk will choose rotis before ITs) These jobs are not for the displaced and this heavy concentration on the IT sector is extremely risky. All our eggs are going into one basket. The investment coming into SEZs because of tax breaks and labor deregulation will simply move on to the next most deregulated place at the drop of a hat. Mexico lost out to China, India may lose out to Bangladesh or some other nation which is willing to provide even cheaper labor. There is no comparison in the security of livelihood with the creation of SEZs as opposed to that of any functioning rural or urban society.

And my final economic argument to throw the WTO language back at it. The IMF and WTO have constantly opposed subsidies to farmers. They have argued that subsidies are state sponsorship of an inefficient means of production. This is a view shared by many hypocritical middle-class Indians as well. How is a SEZ not a state sponsored subsidy of not only an inefficient but destructive model? Yet the IMF, WTO and the World Bank hold China and India as the poster boys of SEZ based "development". Here's a number to chew on: In 1998 a waiver of $1.67 billion on customs duties was given to earn $1.04 billion in foreign exchange. Apart from that, all tax breaks in deregulated zones basically amount to a direct subsidy. One which is not available to the underdog but to the wealthiest cream of Indian money.

The Humanitarian Argument

India is a very poor country and suffers from corruption, a huge population, illiteracy, bigotry, jingoism, religious tensions and a literate but uneducated middle-class. These are all huge over-bearing problems. After a long time in history some of us have a chance of doing something with our 8% growth. We have been able to partially secede from the clutches of the Indian State. I truly believe that the Indian government is the biggest enemy of the Indian people. The corporations are romancing it to get things out for themselves and the Indian State is obliging by taking away everything from those who are still stuck badly in its clutches. How can you and I help them? It is a question of vision and action. We can start by not supporting this atrocity and redefining what we mean by "development".

There is a presumption that each poor villager is waiting to get the hell out of his village and come to Delhi, Bombay or Bangalore. I have even heard Anand Mahindra make that claim at CII's World Economic Forum. It stems from an inherent belief system in the "new globalization man" that everyone in the world aspires for the same things and everything is homogenous. That is just not true. When you speak to most migrants living in slums, they moved because opportunities were not available in their villages. In many cases opportunities were taken away from their villages. I highly recommend "Everybody loves a good drought" by P. Sainath.

The question we could ask ourselves is why aren't the opportunities available to them instead of concluding that since cities offer opportunities everyone will migrate to cities with money they got from selling their land and eventually all this will make India a better place. This will only lead to more slum based urbanization. 60% of all Indian cities are slums. This lack of vision will only lead to more. Majority of SEZ's don't offer jobs or rehabilitation to the displaced. Even those who do, disregard a very fundamental question of vision. Is our aped "way of life" really superior to that which is possible in an agrarian society? Indian villages are not idyllic havens of beauty and I am under no romantic illusions of how beauteous rural life is. Most Indian villages are tribal, caste-based cess pools of narrow minded thinking. So are most Indian cities. I am convinced this is not our best.

The problem then is a lack of education. If they are given the means to get competitive education and information, I'm sure most people can decide for themselves how they want to shape their future. They don't need to ask the IMF, the World Bank or you and I. After 61 years, the inept Indian Government has utterly failed in its responsibilities and I am convinced that the proponents of profit-motive based education will fail to fill that void as well. Education, private or public has to be a not-for-profit long term investment. Think of it like a steel plant with a long gestation period. If you can do it for steel, you can do it for India. If you can do it for defense, you can do it for education. Free, quality education, with access to all kinds of information will make a dent and allow India to have a visionary outlook to growth that is genuinely democratic and inclusive. New ideas will come from the rural community on how they want to see growth. Just give them their chance on an equal footing. How can 8% growth India help without being offensively paternalistic?