Connect with us

Economy

Indian capitalism: Supreme Court directs Tata Company to return agricultural land to people

Published

on

On September 02, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a much awaited judgment on the Singur land acquisition case. Calling the then Left led state government’s acquisition of 900 acres of land for Tata’s Nano plant a “colorable exercise of power and a fraud on the people”, the judges have ordered that all the land be returned to the owners within 12 weeks.

Here is a comprehensive timeline of events beginning from Ratan Tata’s announcement of the small car project in May 2006 followed by protests and resistance by farmers who alleged forcible acquisition in December of the same year when Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee went on an indefinite hunger strike in support of their struggle.

It has been a decade since images of the violence in Singur, and later Nandigram, haunted us but for many of those affected, most of them small farmers and agricultural workers, the verdict is a victory.

The judgment has been scathing in its vindication of the CPM led Left government pointing to lapses in several procedures that ought to have been undertaken as per the Land Acquisition Act.

Judgment

This report in quotes the relevant part of the judgment – State government is required to apply mind to the report of the collector and take the final decision on the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons. Then and then only, a declaration can be made under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act).

In this case there seems to be no application of mind either at the stage of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, or the report of collector under Section 5-A (2) of the L.A. Act or the issuance of the final notification under Section 6 of the L.A. Act. While Section 4 of the Act required a notice to be published in the gazette that land is to be acquired, Section 5-A (2) allows those interested in the land to give objections in writing to the collector and requires the government to take note of the same.

Quoting from the petitions of the Association for Protection of Democratic Rights and others who opposed the land acquisition, this report in the First Post says elaborates on the contentions of the farmers and those who lost their lands – Acquisition of the Singur land for public purpose and then handing it over to Tata Motors for its Nano project was illegal and in breach of land acquisition law. The association had told the court that there was a separate procedure under the land acquisition law for acquiring land for a project of a private company, and that the land acquired by the government for public purposes could be given to a private company only for constructing dwelling units of the workers employed with it and no other purpose.

However, this report by Krishnadas Rajagopal points out that the two judges differed on whether the land acquired could qualify as public purpose. While Justice Gowda felt that the acquisition “For and at the instance of the company was sought to be disguised as acquisition of land for ‘public purpose’ in order to circumvent compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act’, Justice Mishra differed.

Small car industry would have “ultimately benefited” the people and the very purpose of industrialization. The factory would have opened up job opportunities in the State and attracted investment. Regarding procedural issues too, the bench was divided. While Justice Gowda said that individual notices ought to have been issued, Justice Mishra felt that a common gazette notification sufficed.

Despite these differences, the judgment has sent out a strong message about (communist scheme) development at the cost of the poor – In this day and age of fast paced development, it is completely understandable for the state government to want to acquire lands to set up industrial units.

What, however, cannot be lost sight of is the fact that when the brunt of this ‘development’ is borne by the weakest sections of the society, more so, poor agricultural laborers who have no means of raising a voice against the action of the mighty state government.

Rise of Mamata Banerjee

For too long the Congress party that had lost power to communists decades ago tried to wrestle it back but failed. Now a former Congress leader and central minister Mamata Banerjee with her own Congress faction called Trinamool Party has come p to power replacing a formidable Left dispensation as Bengalese rejected Communist opportunism and betrayal. In a way, the foolish communist leaders in the state promoted him imminent arrival of Mamata Banerjee as a historic phenomenon. .

Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mamata Banerjee’s ascent to power in the state, after ousting the Left, had much to do with the struggle in Singur. Banerjee relentlessly protested the “communist” acquisition of the land while firmly asserting that her party was not anti-industry and the 400 acres of land belonging to the ‘unwilling farmers’ should be returned to them. Her “Save Farmland” movement was supported by various environmental activists and intellectuals.

The ruling Trinamool Congress is celebrating and understandably so, because the court has also ruled that the farmers who have received compensation need not return it as they have been deprived of their livelihood for the last decade. In fact, soon after the TMC came to power, Singur Land and Rehabilitation Bill was enacted.

A case testing the constitutional validity of this law, while still pending before the Supreme Court is likely to become “fructuous” given the present judgment. The Tatas, who shifted shop to Gujarat in 2008, cited this reason to remain mute on the subject.

Deception and lose of brains

There is a possibility that Tata Motors could sue the state government for breach of contract. The company issued a statement to that effect. “Political parties may change but the government is a continuity. The company willingly gambled and took lease of the illegal land in good faith. But it now is clear that they were given a bad land title. The company may seek compensation on that ground that the company had valued its loss at Rs.1400 crores (their petition to the Calcutta High Court in 2011).

India Inc however has been more cautious in their reactions. The Singur verdict will not impact the potential of the State in attracting investment. This is, of course, the official statement. Privately, a prominent industrialist pointed out that the Tata Nano episode already served a major blow to the investment potential and there is nothing more to lose.

The relocation took place at a time when Bengal was in the spotlight of investors in India and abroad, seeking investments in the state with lucrative promises to willing investors. . . It also pressed the pause button on Bengal’s dream to emerge as an auto hub. The same article also asserts that the biggest loser, politically, is the CPM. CPI (M)’s vote and seat share is declining at an alarming rate since the 2009 general election.

Efforts to revive the industrialization agenda in the 2016 Assembly election failed miserably. What’s more, post-election they are losing elected representatives to Trinamool.

The CPI(M)’s reaction to the verdict is simple as it is not opposed to the decision of returning land to farmers but had contested her (Mamata’s) 2011 move on some technical loopholes. “Today’s verdict has not answered questions on the legality of the Singur legislation her government had brought, which is what we were opposed to.”

The BJP which lost its chances once for all in the state with Mamata’s arrival, was quick to point out the Left’s double speak. Siddharth Nath Singh, BJP leader in the state, has been quoted saying – The Left opposed our central government’s land acquisition Bill. It said land should be acquired only for public purpose, but in Singur its government had acquired it for a private purpose to promote Tata Company. So, the Left must explain”.

JD United leader Shyam Rajak said that the judgment sends a strong message to the Centre which has been enacting anti people policies. “We welcome the decision of the Supreme Court. This was a fight for the rights of the poor. This decision will ensure that the farmers retain their livelihood. I hope the verdict will send out a positive signal. There are lots of cases – be it Narmada Andolan, or be it about Tehri dam issue which has been fighting for the cause of the poor. The SC should also review these cases as well”.

Not only the left parties but also the Congress and BJP that get plenty of lose findings form corporate lords are worried that their multinational corporate beneficiaries are not happy.

Honoring concerns of common folk

Ever since independence in 1947, Indian rulers, Congress, BJP, others have been relentlessly pampering corporate lords and rich classes to get bribes from them. This has badly affected the fortunes of common people, Muslims suffering the worst. .

Left government West Bengal just took people for granted and launched grand capitalist agenda by looting the agricultural lands for the purposes of increasing surplus values of corporate lords against basics communist pimples. That cost very dearly for the communist parties in the state as they lost the general polls, both parliament and state assembly- to a new Trinamool party of dynamic Mamata Banerjee.

People of India, through the people of Singur have won a great battle against illegal transaction over farmers’ lands and subsequent forceful occupation and exposed communist movement in the country as a false and pretentious one to exploit the weak sections of the nation in their favor.

Supreme Court order, a huge though belated victory and vindication for the courageous peasants of Singur against corporate land grab, should serve as final warning to leftist parties in India to pursue only people’s concerns and not to help promote capitalist agenda primarily because left parties are supposed to be anti-capitalism and fight for the common people and their genuine requirements. They should if required read Marx who wrote in volumes about surplus values.

Nano judgment against government’s immoral dead with capitalists is yet another feather in the Apex Court’s jurisprudence and will go a long in strengthening the power of common people in Indian political arrangement.

Continue Reading
Comments

Economy

What an ‘Impossibility Clause’ can make possible

Mehrnoosh Aryanpour

Published

on

Since the implementation of the JCPOA in January of 2016, and throughout the current period of accelerating investment by foreign enterprises in Iran, many participants have taken for granted that in the event of a “Snapback” or the reimposition of UN, U.S. and EU sanctions under the provisions of the JCPOA, foreigners must perforce exit all investments in Iran and Iran’s major industries would be relegated to the shadows as an unlawful destination for foreign capital.

The operative assumption has been that any such reimposition of sanctions under a Snapback scenario would make it “impossible” for such foreign participants to maintain, lawfully, their investments in the various projects within Iran, investment they have made a huge effort to structure and uphold in the still-new era of significantly relaxed sanctions.  In fact, the very idea of the impossibility of maintaining significant investments in Iran under such sanctions has become something of a fixation. To the dismay of Iranian partners in various ventures, their foreign partners tend to focus on securing their own interests, rights, and recompense under a Snapback. An efficient exit strategy is often sought.

In reality, those who are here on the ground in Iran know that, regardless of the whims of the American President or the vicissitudes of foreign capital flows, the continued development and renovation of Iran’s domestic economy, both in terms of absolute production, as well as in terms of sophistication, efficiency, and integration, will continue apace, and therefore, the wiser among the stewards of foreign investment in Iran understand that it is as much a question of ensuring business continuity for their Iranian-Foreign joint venture projects despite changing international sanctions regimes, which have been imposed by the West against Iran for decades.

As a result, the most basic and fundamental considerations for any prospective foreign project participant and its Iranian partner become:

1. How the foreign participant can, through appropriately drafted “Impossibility Clause(s)”, remain invested in the Iranian venture for as long as possible under the threat of renewed or reimposed sanctions, and without incurring unacceptable risk.

2. How the foreign participant can contractually envision the broadest range of adverse sanctions scenarios through a single and efficient impossibility mechanism.

3. How the foreign participant can provide for a gradual approach to any putative withdrawal procedure, as opposed to the simplistic solution of outright termination upon Snapback after a period of suspension.

4. How the foreign participant can, in the event of the extinguishment of impossibility, subsequent relaxation or obtained exemption of sanctions, reasonably provide for the right, or at least the option, for itself to reenter an investment project which it may have exited because of Snapback.

The legal thought process underpinning successful solutions which industry practitioners may be likely to embrace is beyond the scope of this article, but the conceptual summary can be a useful guide for all of us as we come to grips with what can be made possible by “Impossibility Clauses”.

1. Remaining invested, minimizing risk: Of course, it is true that for many projects, a direct investment by the foreign participant though its stake in an Iranian joint venture entity may be the most straightforward means of effecting the transfer of capital that allows the foreign party to have a stake in a project.  It also allows for the simplest mechanism by which a foreign party may apply for and successfully obtain an investment license in accordance with the Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act.

Nonetheless, such a direct investment may, particularly in the case of European entities which also do business in U.S. jurisdictions or in jurisdictions which have significant links with the U.S. financial system, provide little or no cushion under even the most benign reimposition of any form of secondary sanctions.  This is because the direct investment leaves the foreign party little room to maneuver by way of restructuring or otherwise allocating its participatory interest in the project as sanctions change.

For this reason, a more effective solution could include the formation of a foreign special purpose vehicle to act for the project entity.  In the case of a joint venture, an SPV incorporated in a jurisdiction less likely to be adversely affected by reimposition of sanctions would allow for a more flexible platform to facilitate intelligent solutions such as exit and re-entry options, trustee or agency relationships, and contingent sale-repurchase strategies to prepare for the worst outcome of a sanctions scenario which may force a foreign party to exit Iranian investment.

2.Knowing unknowns, counting uncountables: Even now, with the most recently issued ultimatum by the American President declaring that the end of the JCPOA as we know it is nigh (to be either amended or abrogated, if Mr. Trump is to be believed), there exists a wide variety of circumstances involving the reimposition of sanctions, ranging from those that would make the maintenance of an interest in a project by a foreign party merely inconvenient to those which would make maintaining such an interest lawfully untenable.   These may range from largely toothless, otherwise symbolic targeted secondary sanctions which apply only to the entities of specific countries, as we have continued to see since Trump’s October 2017 decertification, or those which may apply only to certain economic sectors or types of goods or projects, to those which render further financial flows in support of such a project functionally impracticable.  Most challenging of all would be the failure of the UN to continue to waive the imposition of sanctions against Iran.

Thus, a single mechanism to classify sanctions in some way as materially adverse changes and evaluate consequences seems a more pragmatic solution than contemplating what may constitute an “impossibility” event, and including it under grounds for termination.

Under a scenario in which the foreign party has made appropriate structuring preparations as suggested, the determining exit remedies depends on compliance with mandatory applicable laws of the project vehicle’s jurisdiction.  To put it another way, the most straightforward test of whether the foreign party may have to adjust, or exit from its participation, comes down to whether it can fulfill project obligations while abiding by all applicable regulations that may apply to it.  Beyond such a litmus test, imagining or prognosticating about the myriad complexities of a possible Snapback scenario may be fruitless and contractually inefficient.

3.Avoiding the black-and-white trap: Of course, a foreign project participant can easily avail itself of the opportunity to stipulate that under any kind of scenario of project impracticability caused by sanctions, certain or envisioned, termination shall be the one and only prescribed remedy.

But this is likely to disadvantage the foreign party in the context of negotiations over comprehensive project terms with its Iranian counterparty, and it may limit the scope of the project work itself and fail to allow for a more complex investment structure which cannot survive the threat of termination overnight due to a “Snapback” of one kind or another.

Aside from termination, and its precursor remedy, suspension, there should also be the possibility to contemplate a variety of concepts including assignment, agency and delegation, in order to benefit from the vagaries of sanctions regulations and their exemptions. In some cases, project obligations which would be in violation of sanctions for some foreign entities may not be so for others.  As has been shown by the agreements between foreign export credit agencies (“ECA”s) such as EKF, BPI and Invitalia, developments at an international level, especially where adequate sovereign support and sufficiently ringfenced banking facilities exist, are being contemplated to facilitate the kind of continuity required for the decades-long projects now underway in Iran.   In addition to these ECAs, other parties such as quasi-sovereign corporations, particularly those from less dollarized jurisdictions, can play a role as fallback transferees of the exiting foreigner’s project interest or shares under Snapback.  Moreover, it should always be noted that under even the most negative circumstances, the potential for a foreign party to obtain a waiver does exist and can be specified for the benefit of all parties.

4.Saving face, weighing options: Although some foreign entities have a checkered past derived from cutting and running under the threat of or the actual imposition of sanctions against Iran, time has shown that many of the same foreign parties which were forced, or chose, to exit their project ventures are the first ones to have returned since the JCPOA. Such is the compelling nature of Iran as a destination for foreign capital.

Iranian parties to a project know both this history itself and its implications. Foreign participants may wish to keep close to the exits, but foreign companies that have been victimized by their own government’s whims regarding sanctions, and the slippage inherent in exiting and reentering, cannot be understated.
For this reason, foreign project partners may choose to consider the solution of exit and entry “options” for themselves under adverse sanction scenarios, and thus it is important for all parties involved to understand what an “option” precisely means, and how to value such an option.

In financial speak, an option is defined as the right but not the obligation to sell (or buy) an asset in a fixed quantity at a fixed price on (or before) a fixed date in time.  In the case in question, the asset is the participatory interest of the foreign party in the Iranian project, and the date is that point in time at when the parties to a project agree that the foreign party must leave due to sanctions (or is able to re-enter due to easing of sanctions).

However, it is not obvious immediately what the fixed price should be for foreign project interest at the time of exit or re-entry, and, most importantly, what may be overlooked is the tremendous value that such an option has.  In finance, the greater the underlying uncertainty about an asset, the more valuable any option on that uncertain asset is. Similarly, the longer the life of an option on an asset, the more valuable that option is.  In the context of long term investments, any option to exit (or re-enter) should be linked with a significant premium (that is, the worth of the option), and the contract parties should ensure that they successfully negotiate an appropriately fair value for the flexibility the options offer. As an illustrative example, the alternative to any exit put option for the foreign party is a fire-sale in the face of illiquid conditions for its share interest under the menace of reimposed international sanctions, or more problematic still, the inability to exit its share interest altogether, which an option is supposed to protect against.

Absent a foreign investor’s legal immunity to the whims of the UN, OFAC, or other authorities, there is no perfect panacea for fool proofing long-term Iranian projects against the kind of uncertainty which the spectre of sanctions create.  But although this threat, to a certain extent, has forestalled the growth in Iran’s industry and economy despite the strengthening of Iran’s relationships with the international community, it is now apparent, moreso than ever before, that foreign parties can be expected to take an increasingly pragmatic approach in efforts to remain engaged with their Iranian projects for as long as possible.  They can effectively do so by allowing for the most flexible and broad classification of sanctions-related termination risks, by specifying a menu of contractually stipulated responses to reimposed sanctions (in conjunction with intelligent and pre-emptive project structuring) and by exchanging due consideration with the Iranian party for the invaluable options which allow them to remain confident that they can, if absolutely necessary, exit the project and someday re-enter, at a fair price.

Thus, it seems that the operative watchword for all foreign investors in Iran is continuity: continuity of the progression towards innovation, development and growth, and continuity of the participation of foreign interests in that process, bolstered by intelligent structuring solutions, both legal and financial, for dealing with the complicated reality of international economic sanctions.  With a measure of foresight, and a functional, flexible contractual framework, all participants in long-term, large-scale project joint ventures can move closer to the ideal of mitigating most, if not all, of the adverse consequences of sanctions regulations on investment decisions and risk management.

First published in our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Economy

Creating Quality Jobs Crucial to Boost Productivity, Growth in Indonesia

MD Staff

Published

on

Indonesia must create good and quality jobs to help increase the country’s productivity and competitiveness for sustained and inclusive growth, says a new Asian Development Bank (ADB) study.

The study, titled Indonesia: Enhancing Productivity through Quality Jobs, takes an in-depth look at the challenges in creating better jobs and raising the country’s labor productivity, as well as the necessary skills needed for a youthful and increasingly better educated workforce to meet the demands of the digital age. The publication was launched today at an event in Jakarta hosted by ADB and the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs.

“Indonesia has a tremendous potential to capitalize on its youthful workforce by addressing the country’s long-term challenges to job creation and inclusive growth,” said Rudy Salahuddin, Deputy Minister for Creative Economy, Entrepreneurship, and SME Competitiveness, Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs.

“Not only does the country need to create a more skilled workforce, but it also needs to adjust to new global patterns of technology and the demand for new skills,” said Bambang Susantono, ADB Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development.

The study provides three key messages on how to create good and quality jobs for Indonesia’s large workforce. First, improved education and skills development are necessary to create enough quality jobs to raise productivity. Second, as urban jobs are expanding faster, supportive public policies for sustainable cities are fundamental in generating quality jobs. Lastly, there should be continued efforts to improve labor market institutions and regulations that promote a wider range of employment options and better income security for workers.

The study identifies policy initiatives focused on creating better jobs in the labor market, raising labor productivity, and facilitating worker adjustment to the challenges of the digital age. These issues are addressed both from the supply side and from the demand side of the labor market. Policymakers should ensure that initiatives aimed at increasing productivity also target the poor, women, older people, and other disadvantaged groups.

Labor market institutions like private businesses, small-scale enterprises, and community groups also play a critical role in helping improve the employability of Indonesians. Combining new work opportunities with new technology, ideas, and organization will raise productivity and contribute to improved living standards.

Continue Reading

Economy

Agriculture Is Creating Higher Income Jobs in Half of EU Member States but Others Are Struggling

MD Staff

Published

on

Half of EU member states have leveraged the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to significantly reduce poverty and drive higher incomes in farming, while other countries are still lagging, according to the latest World Bank study.

The ‘Thinking CAP’ report details how new investments and services in farming, reinforced by the EU’s flagship agriculture policy, can drive down poverty and transform agriculture into a sector which can provide higher paying jobs for those who farm.

Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Denmark and the Netherlands are all examples of member states that have successfully modernized their agricultural sectors by providing advisory services, roads, secure property rights and access to education and health services in rural areas. Others, such as Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Greece, still have some way to go in reducing poverty and ensuring that agricultural work pays. They can do so by improving the basic conditions for a successful agricultural sector, which would improve the results of the financial investments available under the CAP. Other remaining member states fall in between these two categories – achieving a successful transformation or lagging behind.

“Agriculture and poverty in half of the member states of the EU no longer go hand-in-hand. It’s clear that the income gap between agriculture and other sectors is narrowing and in some countries, such as the Netherlands, agricultural work can pay more than jobs in other sectors,” says Arup Banerji, Regional Director for the European Union Countries at the World Bank. “Today, about half of EU member states recognize that farming can boost shared prosperity, while the other half still has some work to do to provide the basic conditions to bring about necessary structural changes.”

The World Bank report shows that the EU CAP is associated with improving employment conditions in farming. Decoupled payments – annual payments based on how much land a farmer uses – and the co-financing of on-farm investments do show clear links with improvements in agriculture. For instance, in the newer member states agricultural labor productivity growth increases from 3.1 percent to 4.7 percent per year with a 10 percent increase in this type of CAP spending. However, there are certain categories of subsidy – known as coupled payments, which reward farmers for producing a particular crop or livestock— for which the report could find no such association. In the past, these coupled payments also led to extreme overproduction and price distortion on global markets.

“Some countries are running before they can walk by issuing payments to farmers who don’t have the necessary infrastructure to effectively bring their products to market or to make the best use of their investment,” said Rogier van den Brink, Lead Economist at the World Bank. “However, the processes the CAP has put in place are impressive. The CAP casts a very wide net and reaches farmers in every far-flung corner of the EU. Because of this, improvements in the CAP along the lines of the recommendations outlined in our report will further strengthen its role as a powerful instrument of structural transformation.”

Going forward, the report says the monitoring of CAP funds should focus on delivering tangible results rather than confusing bureaucratic processes. This would also encourage the co-financing of private investment into CAP-supported projects which are in the public interest such as environmentally sound practices, organic farming and animal welfare.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy