In her article in The Hindu, (“Nailing the lie of the land,” Op-Ed, August 23, 2012), Ms Medha Patkar has forcefully and with reason argued against the devastating consequences of land acquisition. Without getting into the concerns raised with regard to the larger “development model” we would like to respond to the issues she has raised with the proposed Bill on Land Acquisition which seem predicated on an understanding of the Bill that is not entirely tenable. A brief response to some of these is given below:
Discard eminent domain: the article argues that since capital and labour are not acquired forcefully then neither should land. The argument seems valid on the face of it but land, unlike capital and labour, is not fungible. In other words, land is finite and immovable. Land for local needs cannot be substituted by the acquisition of land elsewhere. To illustrate; if a road has to be built to connect two towns then land at another location cannot be acquired for this purpose. To take such decisions the State, which is the ultimate arbitrator of public good, has to be vested with the power of eminent domain. At the same time, it is important to also acknowledge the myriad ways in which the doctrine of eminent domain as present in the 1894 law, is sought to be significantly attenuated in the proposed new law. The State must have a role in acquisition given that land markets are highly imperfect in India and given that there are huge power and information asymmetries between the buyers and sellers of land.
No acquisition of agricultural land: citing the Standing Committee report, the article argues for a complete ban on the acquisition of agricultural land without distinctions as to single or multi-crop. Again this is not a feasible suggestion as such a sweeping provision will create insurmountable obstructions to growth and development particularly in rural areas. Carte blanche provisions, especially in a law that can only be repealed by Parliament, have to be drafted with caution and in a manner that accommodates need for future growth of the area in question. Each State in India faces unique development challenges and as several States represented before the Standing Committee, many of them regard industrialisation as a key element of their strategy to generate employment. Keeping this in mind, the new Bill retains the restriction on acquisition of agricultural land but leaves the exact limits to be determined by each State in line with its own development priorities.
The Bill also makes it clear that acquisition of multi-crop land is only to be undertaken as a last resort and under “exceptional circumstances.” Furthermore if such land is indeed earmarked for acquisition then an equal plot of alternative land has to be delineated for agricultural purposes. In addition, the Bill provides for States to impose ceilings on such acquisitions taking place within the district as a unit.
Definition of public purpose: The article makes the charge that public purpose has been poorly defined “in a manner worse than in the British Act.” This might be the author’s opinion but it is not representative of the facts. Not only does the new Bill define public purpose comprehensively it also qualifies it by establishing processes whereby such “public purpose” needs to be clearly and compellingly validated. The Social Impact Assessment Process is one where all those affected (including those whose livelihood has been impacted), including representatives from Panchayati Raj Institutions, are invited to deliberate as to whether public purpose is indeed served by such acquisition. This is then vetted by an independent expert group and finally pronounced upon by the high level committee headed by the Chief Secretary of a State. These safeguards are compounded by the high quorum of consent required (80 per cent). None of these processes exist under the 1894 Act.
Rehabilitation: the article argues that the Bill is especially weak on rehabilitation. It suggests that “only cash” is being offered to ameliorate the impacts of acquisition and adds that “cash was offered by the British as well.” This is inaccurate. Over five chapters and two entire Schedules have been dedicated to outlining elaborate processes for resettlement and rehabilitation. The Second Schedule in particular outlines the benefits (such as land for land, housing, employment and annuities) that shall accrue in addition to the one-time cash payments. In fact, the very industry that the article accuses the Ministry of Rural Development of sharing some vague nexus with, has been vocal and vehement in its criticism of these R&R provisions stating that the same render the process of acquisition non-feasible.
Another far-reaching provision that the article fails to draw attention to, and one that draws squarely upon the lessons learned from the past displacements, is the guarantee that none of those individuals whose land has been acquired shall be dispossessed unless alternatives, as enumerated in the Bill, are provided for (Section 37). No such protection, enshrined in a statute, has ever been afforded earlier.
Conclusion: as regards the Standing Committee recommendations, which the article seems to take as the touchstone for its critiques, it may be pointed out that the committee made a total of 28 broad recommendations of which 25 have been accommodated in some form or the other (including the one mentioned in the article regarding the return of unutilised land).
The article is right in its detailing of the lack of justice and parity that has accompanied acquisitions in the past. What it fails to realise is that it is precisely in acknowledgement of such historical injustices that such a legislative revisit is being undertaken. The new Bill is under attack both from “progressives” like Ms Medha Patkar as well as from organisations like the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Confederation of Indian Industry. Therefore, we believe something must be right about the Bill.
(Jairam Ramesh is Minister for Rural Development & Drinking Water and Sanitation; K. Raju is Joint Secretary, National Advisory Council, and Muhammed Khan is OSD, Ministry of Rural Development.)
Keywords: land acquisition, Land Acquisition Bill, Medha Patkar, agricultural land, rural development
Please, you are not writing a thesis for a doctorate. Can't you write in layman's language? Here is a gem: "there are huge power and information asymmetries between the buyers and sellers of land." Let me point out just one thing in support of Medha: Recently, traveling from the city to the international airport in Bangalore, my friend showed me some `developed and plotted' land for building houses. These `developed lands' (thousands of acres) were once producing a variety of foodgrains, vegetables and fruits and now there is neither construction activity nor any farming! The plots have obviously been bought by speculators waiting to make a `kill' when the market looks up. What kind of `development model' is this? Think it over, Jairamji.
Mr Ramesh & Co's response doesn't consider two things; thereby showing
a lack of overall vision regarding use of land in India.
One: that corruption is all-pervasive in India, and at the local
levels of governance which the LARR seeks to engage in the debate
regarding land acquisition and use, corruption largely goes by
unnoticed by society at large, and so, the step may backfire
disastrously.
Two: With a burgeoning population and alarm bells going off about food
security, shouldn't the govt be thinking of making farming and primary
food production a lot more attractive than it is at present rather
than harping on endlessly on the same old lines of financial growth
and industrial expansion? Agriculture also provides a steady means of
livelihood and generates jobs if provided with resources and logistics
by the govt. What's more, it provides jobs on a much more egalitarian
basis than factories and industries and is much less prone to giving
rise to criminal activities in the area.
Let the minister make arrangements for all those who were displaced in the past and then make new laws for acquisition!
Dear Minister and your, supporters,
1. Where in India the local population got benefits in job preference?
2. Where in India the acquired land achived the goal set before acquisition (Eg. there is no power project that has made the proposed electricity-most of the time the numbers were bloated before initialization).
3. The secondary effects of land transformtion, for example dams filled with silt and making them store less water, have never been pre-calculated. Many dams have become obsolete in India. Do you care?
4. Violation of power of Panchayats: How many places the local gram panchayats have accepted the land acquisition?
5. India being a tropical country, the soil is acidic. Any change to top soil will make it useless, in other words, there is no hope to replace the biomass once the topsoil is removed. This is in contrast to subtropical regions where soil is predominatly alkaline and the top soil can be replaced in a couple of decades.
Stop meddling with nature.
Minister,
The fundamental problem is that the larger public has little or no faith
in the political class. There is a perception that all laws are made so
that you can use them to your advantage and help those with deep pockets
in acquiring scarce natural resources like land.
Not that i'm a fan of Jairam Ramesh and his ilk, but the last two lines of the piece are brilliantly put, and bring a glimmer of hope --assuming these guys are not openly fibbing about the provisions of the Bill. I haven't read the response from Ms. Patkar though.
Roads cannot be shifted but industries can definetely be.
Somewhere in some corner of the UPA government, something must be right. Here is one
of those pockets. Well stated. One of the principal reasons for the urban-rural divide is lack
of economic opportunities in rural areas. If a majority of those in rural areas get locked into
subsistence level agriculture, they will get locked into poverty for generations. Surely that
cannot be the intent of Ms.Medha Patkar.
Please Email the Editor