No soft landing

Nandigram has clearly hurt the CPM and the space devoted to it in People8217;s Democracy shows that. The argument running through a front-page editorial is this: the West Bengal government8217;s industrial policy is well thought out and cannot be held to ransom by the Opposition.

Nandigram has clearly hurt the CPM and the space devoted to it in People8217;s Democracy shows that. The argument running through a front-page editorial is this: the West Bengal government8217;s industrial policy is well thought out and cannot be held to ransom by the Opposition. 8220;An attempt was sought to be made to gain public acceptance through terror,8221; the editorial says, referring to the clashes in Nandigram and the deaths that followed, adding that 8220;ground level mobilisation8221; had drawn together 8220;the strangest of political bedfellows8221;.

But the party8217;s resolve is to face the 8220;political onslaught8221; politically, to highlight the designs of those who opposed the Left Front on Nandigram and Singur. Among them is the UPA that, according to the editorial, is yet to accept the changes suggested by the CPM on SEZs. However, taking a line that the CPM is actually accused of ignoring in Singur and Nandigram, the editorial points to the party8217;s stand nationally and in West Bengal: acquisition of land for industrialisation needs to be undertaken both in a transparent manner and in consultation with those who would be affected. Future improvement in the living standards of people was 8220;critically dependent8221; on an accelerated pace of industrialisation and generation of employment. For the record, the editorial insists that no order or notice was issued for land acquisition in Singur but adds that 8220;any transgression8221; by the Haldia Development Authority on this front merited a 8220;proper examination8221;.

Case for industry

The primacy given to pursuing industrialisation aggressively is reflected not merely in the way the party has defended its stand in Singur and Nandigram but also in speeches by party leaders, in this case by none other than Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee. During the 40th anniversary function in Kolkata for the party8217;s Bengali paper, Ganashakti, he pointed out that 68 per cent of the state8217;s population was engaged in agriculture. But one had to move forward to hold on to the success. 8220;That would be to consolidate our agricultural success and go forward towards industrialisation,8221; the CM is quoted as saying in People8217;s Democracy.

Referring to surplus manpower in agriculture he says no new employment would be created if the government did not go in for industrialisation. Taking up the question of where to set up those industries, he says while the Opposition demands that industry be set up on fallow land, there was 8220;only one per cent8221; land in the state that had no crops compared to 17 per cent in the rest of the country. Charting out the road ahead, the West Bengal CM says, 8220;From agriculture to industry, from villages to cities, this is civilisation. We Marxists never deny this aim. We too want this to happen.8221;

Patently improper

Will the Indian Patents Act be 8220;subverted8221; by using standards that had made the US patents system 8220;one of the most dysfunctional8221; in the world? Writer Prabir Purkayastha believes there is a clear danger of that happening following an agreement signed late last month between the

US and India on the patents issue.

He identifies three significant differences between the Indian and US patents systems: India did not allow algorithms, business processes or software to be patented; India still allowed pre-grant opposition to patents which was a safeguard to bogus patents; and the Indian patent law rejected life form patents. The writer says that by 8220;agreeing to allow8221; the US patent office to teach the Indian patent office how to look at patents, what is being proposed is the subversion of the Indian Patent Act by interpretation. This is dangerous because, 8220;It is not the law that has changed in the US but the philosophy of the patent office and the US jurisprudence on patents.8221; Purkayastha points to the rising costs of medicine to argue that a so-called 8220;strong patent8221; mechanism is not in India8217;s interests. 8220;The US-Indian IPR cooperation is nothing but another attempt to brainwash the Indian patent office to follow the US route of allowing patenting of anything and everything,8221; he writes.

Compiled by Ananda Majumdar