We need to be fair to farmers
Land acquisition is done from farmers for a variety of purposes. Besides the usual development needs, such as building roads, railway tracks, institutional buildings that will serve the community, industry, or water channels, in recent times land has also been acquired for housing to be sold to townspeople.
Farmers are usually not against selling their land for development, for they also get served by that development. Their children get employment and the value of their land improves. The problem lies in the latter case.
Governments sell the land purchased at cheap rates from farmers (sometimes in the name of industrial development, as we saw in Greater Noida, but in reality not so) to builders at many times the price they originally paid to farmers. This is the first stage of profit-making. Then builders charge house buyers hundreds of times the original land value, making a huge killing.
When the farmer sees this, he is left wondering. He has been divested of his property that sustained him, while others skim off the milk. This is the root cause of current problems. Unlike in the case of community or industrial development projects, in the case of builders being the eventual buyer, farmers derive no benefits, in terms of employment or otherwise. If hard market conditions hold sway today, the farmer cannot be left out of the gains that accrue from it. That is the base point. This is at the heart of the thinking that land bought from farmers for different purposes — development versus profit-making by builders and contractors — should fetch him different prices or compensation package.
The government of India is thinking of changing the land acquisition law framed as long ago as 1894. It should factor in the conditions of today. Either have two separate laws for the two kinds of cases outlined above, or in the same legislation, make two clear-cut provisions to cater to the different situations. This will be in the interest of fair play. Our farming community should not be taken for granted.
Land acquisition is a complex issue which has to be legislated on keeping in view the larger impact on the livelihood of our farmers since it often paves the path for unemployment.
To prevent the exploitation of farmers by the builders or state governments, two separate provisions will offer better safeguards. In Bhatta-Parsaul, there has been a clear exploitation of farmers. In appropriate instances, the land acquisition laws should also be linked to rehabilitation of farmers.
ANOTHER:
It is a policy of divide and rule
The issue of land acquisition has become an issue of land-grabbing — whether this is for urban housing (through which the builder lobby gains), or for mining, highways and factories.
In both cases big businessmen and corporate houses gain and poor farmers lose. So, because it is a case of one issue of exploitation, the paradigm should be treated as one issue of land justice.
To split one issue of land grab into two separate issues will be to enforce a divide and rule policy while the point is that farmers are being killed because they are defending their land. Therefore, the question of land acquisition has become a life and death issue for farmers. It is the farmers who feed the country. So, what they are defending is not just right to their land but their right to feed the country. This cannot be lost sight of.
The issue is not just of land sovereignty, but also food sovereignty and food security. At a time when 215 million people are starving, the government is promising a food security act; it is promising 61 million tonnes for feeding the poor. At the same time, through the land acquisition policies, the government is making sure that there will be no food for the poor. If the government is serious about the right to food, it must be serious about farmers’ right to land without which there can be no food.
As far as food production is concerned, it is the fertile land around the city that is being grabbed for land acquisition for urban expansion. When you realise this, it becomes clear that you are hitting the food security base of the country and the livelihood base of the farmers. Therefore, there is no reason to treat the question of land acquisition for urban housing as a separate category. The recent case of Bhatta-Parsaul shows that the builder lobbies are no different from the mining lobby.
Both are willing to have people killed to get land. In a democracy, there is no place for such injustice and violence. The government is promising to bring an amended land acquisition act in the Monsoon Session of Parliament. This is recognition that the old law has become the source of injustice and conflict. Whether the amended act will ensure justice to farmers depends on whether they, their occupation (agriculture) and the food question get priority. Remember, land is the basis of our society and civilisation. It is not a commodity.
No comments:
Post a Comment