In letting the land acquisition ordinance lapse, the Union government must have hoped to come across as an administration that is responsive to public criticism and acknowledges key stakeholders’ concerns on important issues. But after having tried hard to sell the amendments as a pro-reforms measure, and to paint the opposition as a misinformed and obstructionist lot, >the Modi government may find it difficult to gain any political mileage from the decision. Indeed, opposition parties are already claiming credit for having forced the government’s hand. And, in contrast, >attempts by Union Ministers and leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party to present the decision as being in the interest of farmers appear to be insincere and hollow. Too much had already been invested in the growth and reforms agenda for the government to now portray the decision as pro-farmer. The confusion in the government’s mind over the legislation showed up in more ways than one. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and BJP president Amit Shah described the decision as pro-farmer, in part acknowledging that some of the provisions were indeed anti-farmer. On the other hand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi insisted that “rumours” had been spread on the land bill, indicating that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it.
The >decision to let the ordinance lapse was the culmination of a series of measures to salvage at least parts of the legislation. The government diluted it in some respects before getting the amendments passed in the Lok Sabha in March 2015. Originally, it had exempted five types of projects — involving defence, rural infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure and social infrastructure — from the consent clause in the 2013 Act brought forward by the UPA regime. It then dropped the ‘social infrastructure’ component. After seeking to exempt the five categories from the social impact assessment requirement, the Modi regime added a condition that it should first be ensured that only the minimum extent of land was being acquired before applying the exemption. It sought to make the Bill more acceptable by introducing a norm that one person in every affected family be given employment. It dropped a controversial amendment that would have enabled the acquisition of land for private hospitals and educational institutions. Later, it considered giving State governments the flexibility to have their own acquisition laws. Even the idea of extending the benefits of the Act to 13 laws — pertaining to railways, highways and such other projects — through an executive order is only in consonance with the original law that held back their inclusion till January 1, 2015. Thus, from the beginning the government, which on other issues was tough and determined, appeared unsure and defensive on the land ordinance. It was inevitable that in the end it had to give in.
