There is no logic behind special economic zones, which destroy one form of manufacturing to promote another, says Medha Patkar in an interview with Sreelatha Menon. Excerpts:

What is your position on SEZs, now that norms are being changed?

They are saying they have notified new norms. But those are not resolving the problems raised by us. The new norms say the developer will take care of everything.

In this economy, there is such inequity between the urban and the rural, industry and agriculture, that the poor farmer is bound to sell his land to the first person who comes by and asks for it.

They are revising the rehabilitation policy draft too. . .

They are saying the developer will take care of rehabilitation also. Why don't they just accept the draft policy that was accepted by the National Advisory Council? When they say the developer will offer compensation, what will be the community's role? The developer will use goondas and money power and get what he wants. The government wants to remove itself from the scene. That is no solution either.

As a whole, the concept of an SEZ is problematic. The problem is that the state has discarded its role as the protector of the rights of its citizens. It has become corporatised. It is not even behaving like a state. Its interests are identical with the interests of industry. The interests of the citizen do not count.

But these are problems facing growth of any industry. You don't rule out the need for industry altogether?

Industry, no. But why an SEZ? Even within SEZs, manufacturing is defined to include agriculture, pisciculture. So why are we killing one kind of manufacturing to promote another? Why do we not have special agricultural zones?

Are you happy with the changes they are making in the Land Acquisition Act?

Again, they are leaving the poor at the mercy of the industrywallahs. Let the government consult us and other organisations struggling for the removal of this Act. In 1998, the government made a draft rehabilitation policy after consulting us and we made it clear which parts of the Act we want incorporated.

What is wrong with the Act?

According to the old British Act, any land can be acquired by the government with a 48-hour notice. In mountains, entire villages, which have been there for generations, can be acquired by a government. I want to know what happened to the National Act on Development Planning and Rehabilitation that was approved by the NAC in 2002.

That should replace the Land Acquisition Act. Before Sonia Gandhi quit the National Advisory Council, the last document she signed was this draft with modifications. Now where is the need to re-invent the wheel?

For more, visit www.action2007.net