In Ottoman Turkey, foreigners were allowed to live under arrangements called capitulations that exempted them from the laws that applied to normal citizens. In nineteenth century China, similar arrangements extracted by the colonial powers under the Unequal Treaties were called concessions. How interesting and ironic then that sixty years afer the end of British rule in India, we have re-introduced a century old colonial practice under another name - Special Economic Zones - and with our own laws, passed by our own democratically elected representatives!
Read this Ministry of Industry advert for SEZ and the Confederation of Indian Industry report of May 2006 on SEZ's highlighting the growth and advantages of SEZ's, and pleading for the continuance of what it calls fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for these zones.
What the latter does not provide is a cost-benefit analysis that shows who gains and who loses, and by how much, from these SEZ's. No mention of the actual amount of subsidies being paid, matched against the revenues earned or value added. No description of the ownership patterns of the firms being allowed to operate in the SEZ's. No analysis of the skill levels of the employment being generated, nor any estimation of how a given improvement in growth rate has improved the employment rate. What happens to the people displaced by the 1,000 or more hectares lost to agriculture for each SEZ opened? How is dishing out this kind of charity for foreign corporations bringing about that "level playing field" so beloved of our business leaders?
The BBC attempts a more balanced picture, but not a critique of the development model itself, since BBC is not in the business of critique, except when it comes to conventional enemies everyone - meaning governments and companies in the "international community" - can agree on, including countries such as Iran and North Korea, or abstractions such as terrorism.
The Modern Review article on SEZ and Sanjay Sangvai's backgrounder provide a much needed critical perspective rarely voiced in the mainstream media, that reveals the predatory nature of the government aided corporate plunder of resources that goes under the name of "development" in India and the third world (oops! "emerging market economies") generally.
Medha Patkar's own article on Singur clarifies the political picture, in case some people are confused by the sight of marxists defending big capital. But she is fighting a rearguard action to protect powerless people from the worst effects of the land-grab, rather than articulating an alternative vision of development.
Comments