Land Dispossession and Livelihood Adaptation: Challenges, Opportunities and Strategies in Rajarhat and Singur

Abstract

The asset based framework for understanding livelihoods has evolved as a very effective tool for the analysis of vulnerabilities and opportunities that shape the lives of the people. This study is organized around the recent episode of agricultural land grab associated with the large scale land acquisition carried out by the West Bengal state government for Rajarhat New Town and the Tata Small Car Project at Singur that posits formidable questions over how the agricultural livelihoods would transform. This paper seeks to look into the various livelihoods strategies adopted and the outcomes experienced by the various factions of the rural population in response to a ‘shock’ i.e. the land acquisition (henceforth referred as LA) carried out during the last decade by the West Bengal state government in the process of developing a new town (Rajarhat) and industrialization (Singur) along the periphery of Kolkata. The case study is based on a sample of 253 farm households, among whom about 190 households have suffered land dispossession the rest being control group. The analysis uses mixed methods: questionnaire survey to collect quantitative data and semi-structured interviews for qualitative information that are combined for holistic understanding. The analysis has clearly indicated the following: firstly, the control households have been better placed compared to the land lost households irrespective of whether they own land or not; secondly, within the relatively larger land owners (semi-large & medium combined), control samples have better livelihood outcomes compared to land-lost counterparts; thirdly, in-spite of losing access to land, the land owners have been better placed compared to their landless tenant cultivator counterparts; and fourthly, those who sold land to the corporates have better livelihood outcomes compared to those whose lands have been acquired by the State. It must be noted that this pattern of outcome directly corresponds with their respective size of the asset pentagon suggesting a concordance between total asset position and livelihood outcomes. Although the differential outcome of the landed and pure tenant households have been somewhat expected, the significantly higher MPCE of the control samples relative to the land-lost counterparts within the relatively larger land ownership class (semi-large and medium combined) points out the complexity of land dispossession even within the land ownership categories. Also, that the fact that the households selling land to the corporates have emerged with better livelihood outcome points towards their higher monetary receipt as a reason behind such pattern. Conclusively it may be exposited that the asset position including compensation receipts have emerged as significant factor in governing the trajectory of livelihood outcomes of the households. The study has indicated that the implications of vulnerability contexts, the effective livelihood options and the connotation of asset ownership have come to be defined through the emergent political climate. There has also been a clustering of capitals including political capital and hence a correspondence between land owning households and better livelihood outcomes relative to the landless (pure tenant cultivator) counterparts. The regionally differentiated adaptation mechanism further highlights how the regional context on one hand and the asset livelihood nexus on the other hand emerge vital in determining effective livelihood adaptation following land dispossession. The study underlines the significance of policies directed to address the asset poverty and insecurity of the vulnerable groups in the context of livelihood transition.