17 New Sites of Production and People’s Resistance in India

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. New Sites of Production and People’s Resistance

5. Resistance at SEZ Sites in India

5.1 What is SEZ?

5.2 Some Cases of Resistance at SEZ Sites

6. Some Cases of Resistance at non-SEZ Sites in India

7. Conclusion

1. Objective

The main objective of this module is to introduce you to the new sites of production and resistance in contemporary globalising India. In this module, you will learn about the important sites of resistance, effects of globalized neoliberalism on such sites of production, cases of resistance at new sites of production in India including its causes, issues, features, organization, leadership, success and failure, etc.

2. Introduction

Production of goods and services is essential for human survival and socio-economic development of the human society. Human society has developed from the primitive stage of existence to the modern, rather contemporary globalising stage of human living passing through various stages in its development. The economic structure and organisation of the society has changed radically over time, more importantly from the predominantly agrarian economy to industrial economy and it has now moved towards the service sector dominated information and knowledge society. In the process, the nature of sites of production has got transformed. The new sites of production are quite different from the old sites of production.

Moreover, economic structure of the society and mode of organising production, associated relations of production and unequal status and life conditions of people are leading to social resistance and struggles by the marginalised sections against the dominant hegemonic forces in the society, including the state policies which cause marginalisation and exclusion of the people. Social movements emerge at different levels which vary in nature, ideology, issues, social base, mode of mobilisation and leadership, which depend on the given circumstances in a given context. With the changing nature of the sites of production, the nature of social resistance and movements resulting from that also changes.

We generally talk about the old social movements and new social movements in the modern period. In concrete terms the old social movements are larger in scale of participation of people and territorial coverage, relatively more organised with specific ideological orientation and leadership, such as the peasant movements, tribal movements and movement of the industrial working class against the dominant classes and the state. These movements tried to put across issue of a specific section of Indian masses say peasants or workers. These movements mostly aimed at structural changes which would significantly improve the status of marginalized sections in society. For example, the peasant movements launched during the British rule in India fought against the zamindari system which led to the introduction of various land reform measures soon after Independence in India. The tribal people fiercely launched struggles against usurpation and exploitation of their resources by the British and to protect their identity. Similarly the organised industrial workers fought against their exploitation and for raising wages and better conditions of work and living.

In contrast, new social movements emerged in the post-Independence period in the last quarter of the 20th century in India which were mostly issue-based with limited social base and mainly for policy changes by the government rather than structural transformation of society, whether agrarian-feudal or industrial-capitalist society. These movements are concerned with different issues, such as environmental protection and conservation, women’s rights, demand by farmers for increasing input cost and raising procurement rate of crops for enhancing profit, and identity-based mobilisations. Hence, they have attracted attention of different sections of masses cutting across class, caste, occupation, gender or region. These new movements emerged in the context of adoption of the State-directed mixed economic model of national development aimed at attaining self-sufficiency to cater to the needs of the people for which the state initiated several welfare policies and programmes for ensuring social justice to the marginalised sections of society. But particularly since the 1990s, the Indian state has replaced the earlier model of development and has initiated systematic structural reforms of the economy and also in the social sectors, which signifies a private corporate sector (both external and domestic corporate) and market-centred export-oriented model of economic growth and market-oriented social inclusion of the marginalised. As a result, there have emerged new sites of production and along with that have arisen collective resistance by the section of society that are getting marginalised in the process of unfolding of the new model of development.

3. Learning Outcome

Upon completion of this module you will get familiar with the different cases of collective resistance at new sites of production in India by different groups and communities against marginalization of their community, livelihood and identity due to the hegemonic and homogenizing project of modernity and capitalist industrial development in recent years in India.

4. New Sites of Production and People’s Resistance

Why we are talking about new sites of production? What do we mean by social resistance in this context, i.e. at the new sites of production? Let us first understand that. The term site refers to a (geographical) place or (territorial) space where certain objects, entities or events are situated or happen to occur. Hence a site of production would mean a site or place where production takes place and the items of production could be varied being of similar or different types. When we talk of new sites of production, it would indicate a time dimension in terms of the site being old and new in certain respect, which could be in terms of type of product, nature of organizational structure of the production unit, type of resources used for production, purpose of production, market of the product for sale, and so on so forth.

For instance, in a traditional agrarian society agricultural land is the site of production of different crops which are largely meant for local consumption. With the growth of industrial society in the modern times, modern industry emerged as the new site of production geared mainly to meet the demands of various manufactured products in the domestic market and partly for international trade. But with the increasing dominance of the large scale industries and corporate business organizations led by multinational and transnational corporations, the focus of production of different goods and services increasingly started shifting from domestic to global market in the recent decades. The modern site of production of a particular industry owned and managed by a business house generally used to be concentrated at a particular place within a country with all its employees located there and being able to form their own organizations, like trade unions to fight for their demands and improvement in their life conditions.

But with the growing resources and influence of the multinational corporations (MNCs) and transnational corporations (TNCs) in the recent decades, the sites of their productions units have got dispersed over several countries, which has been facilitated by the governments in different countries of the world through adoption of the neoliberal policies of privatization, liberalization and globalization (LPG) of the economies which is symptomatic of rapidly increasing integration and interdependence of countries in the world. The emphasis of the governments has increasingly changed from domestic demand driven growth and development to export-led development in which the attempt is made mainly to increase the rate of economic growth with welfarist approach and policies of the governments generally taking a backseat, and increasing marginalization of the poorer and less skilled people who constitute the large majority, particularly in the third world countries of the world. Thus, it can be said that the new sites of production are mostly linked with the corporate-led globalization facilitated by the LPG reforms which has become the dominant trend over the last few decades. The contemporary corporate businesses are spread all over the world and are engaged in different kinds of productive and other activities using both natural and human resources on a global scale. In India also many such new sites of production have been increasingly set up in different parts of the country with the introduction of the LPG policies which has been started systematically and in organized manner since 1991.

Now, let us know about people’s resistance at the new sites of production in India. In fact, the origins of what we now term new forms of resistance or new social movements at new sites of production can be traced in India to the introduction of the neoliberal reforms in the form of New Economic Policy (i.e. LPG) in 1990s. It has been observed that neoliberal policies have uneven effects on different strata of people. Particularly the marginalized sections of society and working class people such as the tribals, peasants, fisher folks and workers have been affected very adversely and not been able to get sufficient alternatives for sustaining their life. In order to liberalize the economy and integrate with the economies of other countries at global level, the Indian state started retreating from its welfare functions toward its citizens. Hence, due to increasing marginalization and exclusion of different sections of society, especially the people dependent on agriculture, forest and water resources have started resisting against the new policies in different forms at the new sites of globalization-linked production to protect their livelihood resources and also to stop injustice caused to them by corporate-led industrialization and growth. These people organized themselves at several new sites of production at local level which also got support by different activists and mostly non-political organizations. The people launched mass resistance perceiving that the neoliberal reforms advocated by Bretton Wood’s institutions/ International Financial Institutions (IFI) like IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank threatened their livelihood security and well-being.

The people have got mobilized mostly at local level at many new sites of production on different issues, such as, to protect their livelihoods, to improve their living conditions, to resist forcible acquisition of their farmland by the government for corporates, women’s issues, environmental security, etc. Therefore, localization of people’s protests and diversification of issues are seen as indisputable features of new forms of resistance. In contrast to the radical revolutionary movements of the past, these new movements do not advocate radical and revolutionary restructuring of the society and state through violent revolution. Rather, their approach is to work within civil society and push government and society to their limits to achieve the necessary change and restructuring (Vanden 2004). United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) holds that these current mobilizations seem different from popular uprisings that preceded them. The systems of mass communication and related communication technology and easy, low cost access to Internet have now combined with higher levels of literacy, widened access to higher education, and much greater political freedom under the democratization process to strengthen global forums of protest (UNDP 1999: 3-9).

In fact, all social movements are embedded historically and geographically to specific contexts. All are “placed” or “situated” in time-space, and they need to be understood where they take place (Conway 2007). Pile and Keith (1997) hold that social movements arise out of specific geographies: they are formed by and enact specific spatialities; they produce new “geographies of resistance”. In the era of globalization, sites/places cannot be considered as pre-given or bounded locals. Sites/places are being constituted in significant ways by forces and conditions arising beyond the place, including the globalization of production, trade, finance, international migration, environmental crises and transnational social movements. Therefore, it can be said that new sites of production are more intensely and obviously cris-crossed by translocal and transnational presences. Keith and Pile (1993b: 6) state that “New spaces of resistance are being opened up, where our ‘place’ (in all its meanings) is considered fundamentally important to our perspective, our location in the world, and our right and ability to challenge dominant discourses of power.” Beauregard (1995: 242) states that ‘this retheorization of the global and the centrality of the spatial dimensions of capitalist restructuring has also allowed for the re-emergence of the local/place as politically significant in its own right, not just derivative of the global/scales beyond the local/place. It has also prompted rethinking of the relation of the local to the global, the emergence of a theorization/politics of multiple scales, a notion that the global and the local are mutually constituted, and even suggestions that the local constitutes the global.’ There are several sites of production in different sectors of the economy in India, namely, agriculture, industry and service sector. Here, we would discuss briefly cases of only the new sites of production and resistance that have occurred mainly after implementation of the New Economic Policy reforms in the form of LPG in 1990s in India.

5. Resistance at SEZ Sites in India

There have been innumerable cases of resistance at new sites of production in India. These cases can be classified into two categories: (a) people’s resistance at the sites of special economic zones (SEZ) which have been established under the provisions of LPG regime, and (b) non-SEZ sites of people’s resistance which do not come under the category of SEZ but are connected directly or indirectly with the new policy regime. This is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Types of new sites of production and people’s resistance

Before we proceed to discuss people’s resistance at the SEZ sites, it would be appropriate to first understand what SEZ is.

5.1 What is SEZ?

Special Economic Zones (SEZs) have been established in several parts of the country with the commencement of the new economic policies by the Indian state since 1991. Under the LPG regime, special policy measures have been introduced for the establishment of free trade zones in India. In this connection, the EXIM (Export-Import) Policy (1997-2002) introduced a new scheme from April 1, 2000 for establishment of SEZs in different parts of India. In June 2005, the Indian Government passed an Act intended to significantly increase exports by legalizing the creation of numerous Special Economic Zone (SEZs). These zones are designed to increase economic growth and attract foreign investment with incentives, such as tax exemptions and industrial business parks (Fulton 2007). SEZs are treated as foreign territories for all the practical and legal purposes. They are ‘deemed to be territory outside the custom’s territory of India for the purpose of undertaking authorized operations.’ In nutshell, SEZs are tax free zones and they came to be treated as if they were physically outside the country. They were allowed to avail additional privileges, e.g. exemption from routine custom examination of exported or imported cargo, lesser penalties for failure to achieve net foreign exchange earnings, better control over foreign earnings, greater access to the domestic markets and, more importantly, hundred percent FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) through the automatic route, etc. The SEZ Act, 2005 clearly states that SEZs can be established not only under public auspices but also by a private sector entity, or by joint sector effort and at the initiative of state governments. Because of the special status given to the SEZ as a foreign territory, several special legislations have been enacted and corresponding modifications done in various domestic laws at Central, State and local levels. The major underlying objective of the SEZ Act 2005 was to generate additional economic activity and to boost exports of goods and services by attracting investment from domestic and foreign sources.

5.2 Some Cases of resistance at SEZ sites

Let us first have a broad overview of some of the cases of people’s resistance at the SEZ sites and issues involved which is given in Table 1. It is observed from the Table that the sites of people’s resistance at SEZ sites are spread over all regions of the country, i.e. East, West, North and South India. The main issues raised in the resistance struggles by the people include acquisition of agricultural land, rate of compensation paid for the acquired land, displacement of people and resettlement, job availability for the local people and labour relations.

Table 1: Some SEZ sites of production and issues involved in people’s resistance

Sl.	Name of SEZ	SEZ Site	Main issues of
No.			Resistance
1.	Brandix India Apparal City	Atchuthapuram,	Land acquisition,
	(BIAC) SEZ	Vishakhapattanam, Andhra Pradesh	compensation and labour
			relations
2.	Kakinada Sea Ports Ltd SEZ	East Godavari District, Andhra	Land acquisition
		Pradesh
3.	Nandigram SEZ	Purba Medinipur District, West	Acquisition of multi-
		Bengal	crop agricultural land,
			dispossession and
			dislocation
4.	The Reliance Maha Mumbai	Navi Mumbai, Raigad District,	Land acquisition
	SEZ (MMSEZ)	Maharashtra
5.	Goa  Industrial	Goa	Dilution of the Goan
	Development Corporation		identity, Jobs for locals
	Development Dispute
6.	POSCO SEZ	Jagatsingpur, Odhisa	Land acquisition,
			deforestation and
			displacement of tribals
7.	Kalinganagar	Odhisa	Land acquisition,
			compensation,
			resettlement and
			rehabilitation of tribals
8.	Mangalore SEZ (MSEZ)	Mangalore, Karnataka	Land acquisition and
			compensation
9.	Reliance Power Project	Dadri, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh	Land acquisition and
			compensation
10.	DLF SEZ	Amritsar, Punjab	Land acquisition and
			compensation
11.	SEZ of Reliance Ventures	Gurgaon and Jhajjar	Land acquisition and
	Ltd and Haryana State		compensation
	Industrial Infrastructure
	Development Corporation
	(HDSIID)

Now we may briefly know some important details about some of the SEZ sites and the nature of people’s resistance there:

Brandix India Apparel City SEZ, Andhra Pradesh

Brandix India Apparel city (BIAC) SEZ is located in Atchuthapuram, Vishakhapattanam in the state of Andhra Pradesh. BIAC SEZ was the joint venture of Brandix Apparel and MAS Holdings, Sri Lanka which service brands such as Victoria Secrets. Resistance at Brandix SEZ occurred in two phases: First, at the time of land acquisition in 2003-04 and second, after production of apparel started in 2008-09. 

During the first phase of struggle against BIAC in 2003-04, a strong resistance by farmers emerged on the issue of land acquisition and compensation in Achuthapuram and Rambilli Mandals of the state. Initially, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre was offered to farmers as compensation. But they found it less and they started demanding that the compensation should be raised to Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Farmers organized big demonstrations, dharna and hunger strikes continuously to mount pressure on the government. Due to continuous pressure from the farmers the Government increased the amount of compensation to Rs. 2,95,000/- per acre. But farmers were not satisfied and they started demanding additional increase in the rate of compensation. They held that the amount of compensation was insufficient to buy a piece of land even 50 km away from their old farms. Despite the resistance, by 2005-06, the entire site of 9,200 acres had been acquired by Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) which displaced 5,029 families (Government notification of AP Rehabilitation and Resettlement) both from Achuthapuram and Rambilli Mandals in the Vishakhapattanam district. The displaced families were not satisfied with their resettlement, rehabilitation and compensation.

In the second phase of struggle, the major issue at BIAC SEZ was labour relations. Production in the BIAC started in 2008-09. Brandix employed a total of 4,000 production workers and 500 clerical management staff by March, 2010. They were mainly involved in stitching, cutting, packing, storing and loading related works. They had the fear of retrenchment all the time. They were not satisfied with their working condition and salary. Workers complained that occupational safety and health (OSH) was not up to the mark in the company. A woman worker died on 9th November 2009 due to lung disease caused by cotton dust pollution on the shop floor. This was the issue on which the workers spontaneously went on strike. The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), a national level trade union and Communist Party India (Marxist) also got involved in the massive resistance and demonstration. Workers demanded compensation and a job for the deceased worker as well as a wage hike and an improvement in working conditions. They alleged the gross violations of labour rights in the BIAC. The strike lasted for three days. The strike ended with the consideration of all the demands of workers by the Brandix management. Here, it is worth mentioning here that the workers of Brandix SEZ were closely linked to each other despite lacking any formal organization and leadership during the resistance.

Kakinada Sea Ports Ltd., SEZ

Kakinada SEZ is located in the East Godavari district on the North-East cost of Andhra Pradesh. East Godavari district is one of the most productive agricultural areas situated in the Krishna-Godavari Agro Climatic Zone of the state. It produces approximately 10% of the total foodgrain production of the state. It is proposed to be a multi-product SEZ (chiefly Refinery, Petro-chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, Ceramic units etc and a sea port). It will cover an area of 9,896 acres. Kakinada SEZ is one of the biggest in Andhra Pradesh and it covers three Mandals: Uppada Kothapalli Mandal, Thondangi Mandal and Kakinada Rural Mandal. The populations of 15 of the 16 villages comprising 7,500 families consisting of 37,500 people face total displacement. The process of notification for land acquisition in Kakainada started in 2002 for M/S Kakinada Sea Ports Ltd and in-principle approval for the same was granted by the government on November 27, 2002 (Pratap 2012). 

In 2006-07, a very stiff collective resistance emerged against the port based Kakinada SEZ due to land acquisition for the purpose. An SEZ covering 9,869 acres meant for the ONGC’s oil refineries was planned near Kakinada, the headquarters of the prosperous district of East Godavari. The initial site of resistance was in the paddy fields near the town. The resistance started by farmers was based on the argument of loss of double-cropped land which resulted in change of the site of land acquisition by the Government. Because of the resistance put up by farmers, the site of the SEZ was shifted to rural areas of Uppada Kothapalli and Tondangi Mandals, some distance from Kakinada, parallel to the sea-coast but some distance inland (Balagopal 2007). The notification pertaining to the shifting of location was issued on January, 2006. Soon after that, the process of acquiring 10,000 acres of land in Uppada Kothapalii and Thondangi Mandals was launched (Pratap 2012). The land now to be acquired was described as land of poor quality. Residents of the villages now to be acquired were infuriated because the land of poor quality as declared by the Government has abundant cashew, coconut and casuarinas groves. Apart from that fisherfolk of the coastal areas had strong apprehension that chemicals of refineries will pollute the streams that flow into the sea and kill fish. In short, there was a strong discontent among farmers and others for the forceful acquisition of land.

Meanwhile, several farmers associations, NGOs, political parties, various organizations created during Tsunami came together and formed a common platform Vyathireka Zilla Sanghibhava Committee (Anti- SEZ Solidarity Committee) to systematically raise the issue. They launched a campaign “Stop the SEZ with One Rupee” to awaken and organize the farmers in 2007. They organized various demonstrations, dharnas (sit-in protests) at district and state headquarters. Famous social activist and leader of people’s movement Medha Patkar also tried to facilitate the demands of the farmers before the Chief Minister of the State. Despite that, the state did not suspend the land acquisition process. Then, farmers challenged the notification for the acquisition of land in the High Court and at the same time intensified their protest. As a result, the government adopted repressive measures to tackle the issue. On September 6, 2007, around 1,200 police personnel along with surveyors, revenue officials and senior officials of the district administration reached the villages of in Srirampuram, Rayavaripodu, Mummidivaripodu, Ramraghavapuram and Katurivaripalem to acquire the land. Farmers strongly resisted the actions taken by police. The police used water cannons to terrorize them. They forced them to sign a written bond that they would not enter in the village (Pratap 2012).

Further, Andhra State Human Rights Commission (APHRC) also intervened in the matter and presented a petition to the High Court revealing the fact that how Government coerced the farmers with the help of state machinery such as police, revenue and tax officials etc., to vacate their lands. Again on December 23, 2008, the officials with the help of 1,000 police personnel tried to acquire and fence off 2000 acres of land at Srirampuram, Moolpeta, Vakadaripeta, Thondangi, Perumallapuram, Chodipallipeta and other villages. The situation got aggravated when police started repressive action and arrested their leaders. The villagers became aggressive and literally compelled the police to leave the land.

Meanwhile, on December 24, 2008 an important judgment came from the High Court on the issue of land acquisition in Kakinada, directing the Government not to take possession of lands forcibly except in accordance with law (New Indian Express, December 25, 2008). The resistance at Kakinada was successful in halting the land acquisition process. The farmers were successful in retaining their lands even after it was acquired and compensation was paid.

Nandigram SEZ, West Bengal

Nandigram is located in the vicinity of the industrial city Haldia in East Medinipur district of West Bengal. The Nandigram SEZ controversy began with the Government’s decision to allocate Nandigram area to Salim Group of Indonesia for setting up a chemical hub under SEZ policy. The Nandigram SEZ required acquisition of over 14,000 acres of multi-crop and fertile farmland which covered over 27 villages of Nandigram.

Main issue of the farmer resistance at Nandigram was for withdrawal of the proposal to set up a SEZ there. They had a strong fear of forced acquisition of their multi-crop and fertile farmland, dispossession and dislocation. Such dislocation was bound to affect not only people earning their livelihood directly from agriculture, but also other people living in the area for generations and those providing various services to them (Bhattacharya 2007). Hence, resistance movement began which was spearheaded by a newly formed organization Bhumi Uchhed Pratirodh Committee (BUPC). Despite the assurance given by the Chief Minister of the state to withdraw the proposed SEZ, the administration repeatedly stated that chemical hub would be set up in Nandigram. The situation was precipitated by repressive and violent action of police on March 14, 2007 at Sonachura and Bhangabera. In the violence that occurred, 14 people were officially declared as killed. The report of the people’s tribunal, headed by Justice S. N. Bargava, a former chief Justice of Sikkim High court named 14 people, including two women, who were killed by the police, and one person missing. The report further stated that “the motive behind this massacre seems to be the ruling party’s wish to ‘teach a lesson’ to poor villagers in Nandigram by terrorizing them for opposing the proposed Special Economic Zones (SEZ) project” (Chaudhuri & Sivaraman 2007). A disturbingly large number of cases of sexual violence by both the police and armed ruling party cadre against women were noted in the report (Sen 2008). But as a consequence of the collective resistance, the State government assured that chemical hub was now likely to be shifted from Nandigram to Nayachar and it will not be an SEZ.

The Reliance Maha Mumbai SEZ Project

The Reliance Maha Mumbai SEZ (MMSEZ) is proposed to cover 45 villages in Uran, Pen and Panvel Taluks of Raigad district of Maharashtra, spread over 10,000 hectares of land area. Major objective of MMSEZ was to develop various infrastructure related projects e.g. roads, industrial and commercial parks, power and water distribution networks, social leisure and recreational facilities etc. About 1,00,000 people of 45 villages would be directly affected by the projects of MMSEZ.

Villagers of the affected Talukas have been opposing this project, since the land acquisition notice was served. Most of the villagers belong to the Agri and Katkari tribes and Koli (fisher folk) community. People of 45 affected villages organized themselves under the banner of various organizations e.g. MMSEZ Virodhi Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti, Chaubis Gaon SEZ Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti, National Alliance for People’s Movement, Jagatkikaran Virodhi Kruti Samiti, Panchkosi Khar Bhumi Kheti Bachao Samiti, etc. On 21st June 2007 approximately one thousand farmers participated in the agitation under the leadership of MMSEZ Virodhi Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti and burnt the land acquisition notification. The resistance became intense when more than 10,000 people assembled in Pen and burnt the land acquisition notification. They demanded that land acquisition notices served to the people of 22 villages should be withdrawn. Meanwhile, around 40,000 agitated farmers participated in a massive rally called by Maha Mumbai SEZ Virodhi Shetkari Sangharsh Samiti at Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai on July 27th, 2007. Due to repeated and tremendous pressure of farmers and activists, the issue of land acquisition was raised in the Legislative Assembly of the state on 25 July, 2008. On 26th July 2008, the Assembly announced that they would exclude the 22 villages from MMSEZ. In this way, with the Maharashtra Government denotifying the land acquired for Raigad SEZ finally ended because of stiff resistance from farmers of Raigad.

POSCO SEZ, Odisha

The site of Pohang Steel Company (POSCO) India Pvt. Ltd a multi-product SEZ is Jagatsighpur district of Odisha. This SEZ set up by the South Korean steel giant was to be the India’s largest foreign direct investment, a whopping 12 million dollars involved in the deal that took place between Odisha Government and POSCO in June 2005 (Asher 2006). The provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) include transfer of huge amount of land, raw, materials, water and the right of establishing if necessary a new port at Paradeep to this foreign company (Mukhopdhyay 2006).

The POSCO SEZ was proposed to cover 4,004 acres of land for establishing steel plant, sea port, etc. Out of 4,004 acres land to be handed over to the project, 3,566 acres are declared as government land, by implication uncultivated and nobody’s personal property. It covered in part forest and in part revenue land (Balagopal 2007). The Government projected that the effect of land acquisition would be less because only 438 acres of required land was privately owned. Moreover, it held that the land in possession of tribals will not be considered as privately owned, and therefore they were not entitled for the compensation.

More than 33,502 families of tribals, farmers, fisherfolks of three Gram Panchayat, namely Gadkujang, Dhinkia and Nuvagaon were to be adversely affected by the POSCO project. They were unwilling to give up the land that gives them substantial livelihoods and were ready to battle it out (Balagopal 2007). In fact, a strong people’s resistance began and continued in parts of Jagatsinghpur against the steel plant and the captive port proposed in the area since July 2005, a month after POSCO and the Orissa Government signed a memorandum of understanding on the project (The Hindu, May 7, 2007). The protesters held that the livelihood of thousands of people who depend on fisheries, betel vine, paddy and cashew crops would be badly affected if the plant was allowed to be set up there (Asher 2006). The resistance against POSCO was organized under the banner of POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (PPSS). The resistance faced continuous repressive actions by the state. However, due to continuous resistance by the protestors POSCO has not been able to acquire all the required land from the farmers for its project despite several attempts made for the purpose.

6. Some Cases of Resistance at non-SEZ Sites

In addition to the SEZ sites, there have been reported various cases of non-SEZ sites of production, such as manufacturing and even nuclear energy, where people have put up resistance against projects in the recent years. This includes projects initiated or set up by MNCs, domestic corporate business houses and even the government itself. A glance at Figure 2 would provide a brief idea about some such non-SEZ sites of production and the main issues involved in the people’s resistance struggles in India.

Table 2: Some non-SEZ sites of production and issues involved in people’s resistance

	Sl.	Non-SEZ Sites	Main issues of Resistance
	No.
	1.	Coca Cola Plant at Plachimada,	Privatization  of  water,  overexploitation  of  groundwater,
		Kerala	disposal   of   toxic   sludge,   groundwater   pollution,
			agricultural distress, use of pesticides, displacement and
			destitution  of  indigenous  people,  corporate  imperialism
			and globalization.
	2.	Nuclear  Energy  Reactors  at	Eviction of people from the villages, Water contamination
		Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu	due to possible radiation, livelihood and survival issues of
			fisher folk.
	3.	Tata Motors Project at Singur,	Acquisition   of   agricultural   land,   demand   for   fair
		West Bengal	compensation,   industry   Vs   agriculture,   contestation
			between  neoliberalism  and  India’s  agrarian  economy,
			attainment of  real food security.

Now, we would briefly discuss about these non-SEZ sites of production and the kind of resistance launched by the people at these sites.

Resistance against Coca-Cola Plant at Plachimada, Kerala

The policies of liberalization and privatization affected various sectors including key areas like land, water and power. Water market in India was a burgeoning and highly profitable in the 1990s because of the growing demands by urban middle class for better infrastructure and service provisions. It covers everything from the outright privatization of urban water supplies and waste water management to joint contracts with cities and public sectors entities for improving and managing water infrastructure and water delivery to industries and consumers (Aiyer 2007). By the late 1990s and early 2002, the bottled water industry in India was growing rapidly.

Plachimada is a small hamlet in Moolratha village of Perumatty panchayat of Palakkad district in the Kerala state where the Coca-Cola Company (a transnational corporation) set up a bottling plant in March, 2000 in the wake of LPG reforms in India. The Coca-Cola Company acquired 34.64 acres of land, mostly paddy fields, in 1998. In 2000, the local unit of rural self-governance i.e. Perumatty panchayat granted a license to the Coca-Cola Company to produce soft drinks. The plant was commissioned in March 2000 to produce its popular cold drink brands, such as Coca-Cola, Maaza, Limca, Fanta, etc.

Major inhabitants of Plachimeda were Adivasis (tribals), Muslims and other backward communities. The company was extracting around 0.8 to 1.5 million litres of groundwater per day. Within two years, people of Plachimada started experiencing the problems of lower groundwater level and water contamination. Due to water shortage farmers were unable to do agricultural works. The Coca-Cola Company dumped its toxic waste sludge in the nearby farmlands in the name of fertilizer. Meanwhile, a report was published by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi in 2003 pointing out high levels of pesticides in Coca-cola products.

In the wake of these issues, the Plachimada resistance struggle against the Coca-Cola Company was launched by the affected people, their sympathizers and activists on April 22, 2002 under the banner of ‘Coca-Cola Virudha Janakeeya Samara Samithy’ (Anti Coca-Cola People’s Struggle Committee). They held that the Company was responsible for the destruction of the environment and livelihood resources of the people. Over 1,300 people, mostly adivasis, participated in the resistance with the demand to shut down the Coca-Cola Company. But they were taken into custody and removed from the site of resistance. Despite that the resistance persisted with the full participation of the adivasi women, youth, environmentalists, etc. They started organizing dharnas, blockades, sit-ins, rallies, meetings and marches across the state. Responding to the mounting pressure from the local community, the Perumatty panchayat refused to renew Coca-Cola Company’s license for further production. Subsequently, the state government was forced to impose a temporary ban on the drawing of groundwater owing to the severe drought conditions that prevailed in the region (Raman 2005). As a result, the plant stopped operations from March 9, 2004. In short, the people’s resistance at Plachimada was against privatization of water and a powerful transnational corporation which was fought for the ‘new’ concerns about environmentalism and the consumption pattern emerging since the rise of neoliberal globalization.

Resistance against Nuclear Power Plant at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu

The local villager’s resistance to the nuclear reactor projects in Kudankulam is one of the recent examples of resistance at new sites of production. The Indian government signed a contract with the USSR (now Russia) government in 1988 to set up nuclear reactor project for generation of nuclear energy at Kudankulam in Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. In the same year, the peasants and fisher folk of the region started their agitation against the project because they realized that the water needed for the nuclear plant would be drawn from an irrigation dam in the region on which they were dependent. The fishing community of the region joined the peasants, understanding that the waste water released from the plants to Bay of Bengal would affect their livelihood (Varughese 2012). There were two main issues of resistance against nuclear power plant at Kudankulam.

The first major issue was related to massive eviction of people from the villages as a consequence of establishment of the proposed nuclear power plant. The setting up of two 1,000 MW nuclear reactors at Kudankulam required immediate eviction of the people of Kudankulam itself, along with people of Panjal and Perumanal villages, which are very close to the site of nuclear power plant. Moreover, farming activities in the region of around 10 km. from the nuclear reactor faced severe curtailment, leading to eventual eviction of farmers from the nearby villages which included Radhapuram, Vijayapati and Chettkulam (EPW 1989). Over 1,00,000 persons faced eviction and the livelihood of over 50,000 persons was affected because of the nuclear plant.

The second major issue pertained to the livelihood of fisher folks. Because of the nuclear reactors, fishing activities in 75 km. fishing belt from Uvari in Chidambaranar district to Muttom in Kanyakumari district was going to be affected. Once the seashore gets contaminated due to possible radiation leak from the nuclear reactor, there will be no way available to the fisher folk to sustain their life.

Hence, demonstrations against the nuclear power plant started by the affected villagers that led to fierce confrontation with the police in May 1989. Police fired at the protest march organized by the local people under the banner of the National Fish Workers’ Union, killing one person (The Hindu 2011). However, because of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the project did not get pursued immediately. The project was revived only in 1997. This time, the government agencies were cautious to avoid direct confrontation with the villagers and declared that processed sea water will be used in reactors instead of irrigation and drinking water from the dam. In 2001, the People’s Movement against Nuclear Energy (PMANE) was formed to raise public concern about the nuclear risk at wider platforms. Subsequently, civil society groups, environmentalists, scientists also joined the resistance. A number of deliberations, protest demonstrations were organized at several places on the risk and safety issues of nuclear plant.

Peasant Resistance to Land Acquisition at Singur, West Bengal

The peasant resistance to land acquisition for the Tata Motors project at Singur in Hooghly district of West Bengal started in May 2006 with the decision of the Left Front (LF) government to acquire 1,000 acres of fertile agricultural land at Singur for the construction of a car manufacturing factory. The major issues of resistance at Singur were acquisition of multi-cropped fertile agricultural land, demand for fair compensation and against unplanned industrialization. It was reported that the LF government of West Bengal compelled landowners to surrender their land at a low price. Its compensation formula was also biased in favour of non-cultivating absentee landowners, and grossly unfair to the actual cultivators, bargadars (share croppers) and agricultural labourers. The agitators also held that acquisition of multi-cropped, fertile agricultural land will have a negative impact on food production and might create a greater imbalance in the food security situation of the state. These factors were giving rise to stiff resistance from peasants and their supporters at Singur.

The resistance at Singur symbolized both the drastic changes that are taking place in rural India due to neoliberal reforms as well as the challenges that LF government had to confront while walking the tightrope of resisting and adjusting to them (Banerjee 2007). The active participation of women emerged as one of the most important features of the people’s resistance at Singur. From the beginning, women were at the forefront protesting against the acquisition of land. On various occasions they formed the majority among the agitators. Particularly, whenever the government officials tried to enter the villages to serve the notifications to the farmers for acquiring land, the women appeared in spontaneous resistance with brooms and sticks in their hands after alerting others by blowing conch shells (Banerjee 2006). Given the high intensity of the women’s participation and their role in the peasant resistance at Singur, their resistance has been compared with women’s role in the Tebhaga movement in the late 1940s. Women were seen defending their rights and giving evidence of police torture of September 25, 2006 before a panel that comprised Medha Patkar, Mahashweta Devi and others at a public hearing organized on October 27, 2006. Though Trinmool Congress party played instrumental role in the resistance at Singur, there were a number of Marxist activists and supporters also who actively participated in the resistance. As a consequence of the stiff resistance by the people, Tata Motors finally abandoned its car manufacturing project at Singur in West Bengal. Recently, the state government has started giving possession of land back to the farmers which was earlier acquired, and farming is set to resume at the demolished Tata Nano plant site (The Indian Express, Lucknow ed, October 21, 2016).

7. Conclusion

It is observed that the introduction of the LPG reforms in India since the 1990s signifies a shift from the state-dominated self-sufficiency guided mixed-economy and domestic market based welfarist model of development to a private sector, rather corporate sector and market-centred export-oriented economic growth and market-driven social exclusion perspective. In short, shift from a domestic-centred relatively closed-economy model to a globally-oriented open economy model of development in which now both the domestic and external corporates (i.e. MNCs/TNCs) are considered the main agency of economic growth and social development rather than the state. As a result, new sites of production (both SEZ and non-SEZ) mostly linked with LPG reforms have emerged which are generally those of the large corporates that require land (quite often multi-crop fertile), water and forest resources and the state facilitates the process through acquiring land from the farmers and providing other natural resources. A large number of people, viz. farmers, tribals, fisher folk, etc depend on these natural resources for their livelihood. Hence, acquisition of these resources for the corporate businesses marginalizes the people threatening their basic livelihoods, and also gives rise to problems related to fare compensation for acquired land, proper resettlement of people, etc. As a result, the affected people have put up stiff resistance against the government policy and the concerned corporate projects in all regions of the country that cause their marginalization and exclusion.

Further, it can be said that despite their unique feature of being linked with the contemporary LPG reforms, this type of collective resistance of the people would come under the category of new social movements in the sense that they are basically issue-based, localized, reactive and socially non-transformative in nature. These movements die down once their collective concerns are redressed. They neither have any long-term comprehensive societal agenda or ideology, nor stable organizational structure or leadership. Their social base is also limited and localized working largely as an interest group, though such collective resistances by the people have been supported in some cases by civil society activists but rarely by some political party. These are mostly non-political struggles. People have mounted resistance struggles against government policies and corporates at new sites of production when attempts have been made to evict and deprive them from their traditional sources of livelihood and sustenance such as agricultural land and forest resources for corporate profit maximization without providing them feasible and adequate alternative avenues for a decent human living. In contrast to the radical movements, these new movements do not employ or advocate radical and revolutionary restructuring of the state and society through revolutionary struggles. Rather, their approach is to work with or within the structural confines of the existing society and the state but put up resistance against the policies and projects that intend to cause their marginalization and exclusion making their life more miserable. Finally, it can be stated that new resistance struggles of the common people like farmers, tribals and fisher folks at the new sites of production have been quite successful in getting their demands fulfilled in many cases though they have suffered very much in the process.