ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Singur - 2

Going through the data and analysis by Buddhadeb Ghosh the information about 6% of the stated unwilling land­owners holding 36% of the land points ­towards a clear class contradiction. What also contributed to this perception is that during the movement and even in the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011, the neglected issue is the question of the fate of landless agricultural labourers, lessee cultivators, i e, the rural poor, who by sheer numbers qualify to be the most adversely affected section in the scenario. Hence, the movement was by the landowners, for the landowners.

One can understand the class character of the party leading that movement and the predictable actions and reactions. But there were some people on that platform (now largely mute), who are not known as adverse to the 70% of India’s population who are vulnerable.

To read the full text Login

Get instant access

New 3 Month Subscription
to Digital Archives at

₹826for India

$50for overseas users


(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top