The London School of Economics and Political Science History, Ideology and Negotiation The Politics of Policy Transition in West Bengal, India Ritanjan Das A thesis submitted to the Department of International Development of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy London January 2013 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 101100 words. I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Sue Redgrave. ii For Baba iii Abstract The thesis offers an examination of a distinct chapter in the era of economic reforms in India - the case of the state of West Bengal - and narrates the politics of an economic policy transition spearheaded by the Left Front coalition government that ruled the state from 1977 to 2011. In 1991, the Government of India began to pursue a far more liberal policy of economic development, with emphasis being placed on non-agricultural growth, the role of the private sector, and the merits of foreign direct investment (FDI). This caused serious political challenges for the Communist Party of India - Marxist (CPIM), the main party in the Left Front. Historically, the CPIM was committed to pro-poor policies focused on the countryside and had spoken out strongly against privatisation and FDI; however it could not ignore the stagnating industrial economy of the state, and was thus compelled to court private investment and take advantage of the liberalised policy environment. The nature of this dichotomy – one that characterised the political economy of West Bengal over the last two decades – is studied in this research as a set of why-how questions. Firstly, why did the CPIM/Left Front take upon itself the task of engineering a transition from an erstwhile land- reform and agriculture based growth model to a pro-market development agenda post-1991? And secondly, how was such a choice justified to/negotiated with the various stakeholders (the rank and file of the CPIM itself, other coalition member parties, trade unions, the industrial class, etc.) while sustaining the party’s traditional rhetoric and partisan character? In examining the second part, the thesis also ventures into the recent cases of huge opposition to land acquisition for industrial plants at Singur and Nandigram, and demonstrates how the mandate of the top brass of party leadership in Calcutta was being implemented, translated or contested at the local levels. On the whole, this thesis attempts a reappraisal of the political- economic history of the Left Front regime and particularly that of its majority partner, the iv CPIM, over the last two decades. It also places the case in a broader Indian context and contributes to wider debates on the changing nature of federalism in India and the politics of economic reforms. Keywords: India, West Bengal, Left Front Government, CPIM, economic liberalisation, policy negotiation, politics, federalism. v Acknowledgements Being an ardent cricket enthusiast, let me begin with an analogy about the same. It is said of cricket that it is the most ‘individualised’ team sports of all. A PhD, in many ways, is just the opposite. It is the most ‘collaborative’ individual process, one that is almost impossible to complete without the help of numerous individuals. During the course of this research, the nature of such collaboration went far beyond academic associations, and became a humbling experience of support, trust, and friendship bestowed upon me by so many. At the onset, let me express my gratitude to several people at the Department of International Development, LSE. I have accumulated debts from Prof. Robert Wade, Prof. James Putzel, Dr. Ken Shadlen, Dr. Elliot Green, and Ms. Stephanie Davies for their helpful comments and assistance at different stages of this work. I am also indebted to Prof. Sumantra Bose (Department of Government, LSE), Prof. Robert Baldwin (Department of Law, LSE), Prof. Maitreesh Ghatak (Department of Economics, LSE), and Prof. Kunal Ghosh (University of Manchester) for their help and support throughout the course of this research. Crucial financial support came from the LSE Research Fellowship, Central Research Funds (University of London), and the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust, without which I could not have completed this research. I am also extremely grateful for the help and support provided by Ms. Sue Redgrave in proof-reading and editing. In India, I am indebted to all my sources and respondents who form the core of this thesis. Special mention should be made of the Legislative Assembly library in Calcutta. I fondly remember its staff and particularly the Chief Librarian, Mr. Ashwini Kumar Pahari, for their assistance. I am also thankful to the librarians of the Planning Commission and AKG Bhavan (CPIM headquarters) in New Delhi, the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO), Department vi of Statistics (GoWB), Aajkal, and Ganashakti in Calcutta, and the friendly staff of the NBA publishing house at College Street, Calcutta. There are, of course, some individuals without whose generosity this research could never have been carried out. I remain forever indebted to Prof. Abhirup Sarkar and Prof. Buddhadeb Ghosh (Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta), Prof. Sugata Marjit and Prof. Dwaipayan Bhattacharya (Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta), Prof. Shubhashis Gangopadhyay (India Development Foundation, New Delhi), Prof. Sanjeeb Mukherjee (University of Calcutta), Manoj Srivastava (Jamsetji Tata Fellow, LSE), Debashish Chakrabarty (Ganashakti), Ashis Chakrabarty (The Telegraph), Jayanta Ghoshal (Anandabazar Patrika), Anil Acharya (Anushtup), Shantanu Guha Ray (Tehelka), Suvashis Maitra (Kolkata TV), Partha Sarathi Banerjee (freelance journalist), Pritam Ghosh (Congress), Samir Putatunda and Saifuddin Choudhury (Party of Democratic Socialism), Debabrata Bandopadhyay (I.A.S, retired), D.P.Patra (I.A.S, retired), Debashish Som (I.A.S, retired), and Shantanu Pramanik. A special note of thanks goes to Bappa, who willingly gave up his Durga Puja celebrations to escort me around Singur. Above all, I owe an immense debt to two individuals who have helped me in more ways than I can count – Suparna Pathak (Anandabazar Patrika) and Nirbed Ray (Asiatic Society). Suparna-da and Nirbed-da, simply expressing gratitude will not do justice to your contribution to this research. In a process that spanned over six years, a plethora of individuals provided both intellectual and emotional support. Sayantani Adhikary, Vrinda Aggarwal, Dominik Balthasar, Amarnath and Malabi Banerjee, Minati Banerjee, Pratyush Banerjee, Shipra Basu, Shinjita Basu-White, Niladri Chatterjee, Rituparna Chattopadhyay, Avishek Das, Meghna Dass, Ipsita Dutta, Thomas Goodfellow, Rosemary Gosling, Neha Khanna, Zaad Mahmood, Richard and Phil vii Mullet, Deepak Nair, Kumar Nilotpal, Sabyasachi Mukherjee, Ilora Pal, Anokhi Parikh, Madhurima Paul, Praveen Priyadarshi, Charmaine Ramos, Sukumar RayChaudhuri, Sanchari Roy, Samudra Sarkar, Asok Sen, Bimbabati Sen, Jhuma Sen, Rushati Sen, Abhijit Sengupta, Mrittika Sengupta, Mahvish Shami, Prashant Sharma, Farhan Siddiqi, Jayraj Sundaresan, and Kayoko Tatsumi - your support and encouragement has been invaluable, and I cannot thank each of you enough. A special mention needs to be made of Ranjita Neogi, whose companionship has been invaluable in recent times. Thank you, for all the laughter and the promises. I first met my supervisor - Prof. Stuart Corbridge - in 2006, during a time in my life when I had almost given up all hopes of doing a PhD ever. From that point onwards, not only was Stuart central to this research in terms of intellectual guidance, but he also contributed immensely to my development as a researcher as well as an individual. Even when I deviated significantly, he guided me with words of warm encouragement and a reassuring smile. I cannot imagine having embarked on this journey with anyone else. Thank you, Stuart. Finally, in this long and arduous process, the support of my family has been crucial. I particularly want to name two individuals, who have been my greatest source of support and inspiration. My mama, or maternal-uncle, who has not only been a guardian, but also my closest friend, philosopher, and guide over the last thirty-two years; and my father, to whom I owe everything that I am today. My father passed away in 2010, halfway through the course of this research, which in many ways was more a dream of his than mine. Wherever he is today, I am sure he is smiling. This work is dedicated to you, baba. viii Table of Contents ABSTRACT iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ix List of Tables and Figures xv Abbreviations of Selected Terms xvii PROLOGUE 20 Overview 20 A Map of the Thesis 24 PART I CHAPTER 1: THE POLITICS OF ECONOMIC TRANSITION: PUZZLES, PERSPECTIVES, AND THE INDIAN EXPERIENCE 29 1.1 Introduction 29 1.2