The response to my article by Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Rural Development, and his colleagues is a welcome move towards a public debate which we have suggested, time and again, should be held in every State with all people’s organisations. I would like to briefly reply to some points in the Minister’s response:
His argument that land is finite cannot be used to justify forcible acquisition. The Bill proposed by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is clinging on to a colonial legacy. The consent of the gram sabhas, the community and people should be the precondition before any natural resource, land or mineral, is acquired. Exceptions can be made in post-calamity, post-riot situations or in acquisitions of land holdings that are above the ceiling. Can a decentralised Development Planning Act serve the purpose? Let the community put forth its vision and plan as per Article 243 of the Constitution; what is completely unacceptable is for the government to acquire land for private and PPP projects.
Saving agricultural land for food security and for the livelihood of crores in this country is a must for our survival. The All Party Parliamentary Standing Committee itself has realised this. Not 18 lakh, but 180 lakh hectares (typographical error in the original article) was diverted in a decade for non-agricultural purposes. We are not against, but for true industrialisation. The trend of industries grabbing land and public resource, next to expensive public infrastructure and using it for recreation goes against all norms of public purpose.
It must be reversed. The States too must be restrained in the public interest from undertaking forcible acquisition.
“Public Purpose,” as defined in the Bill is widened beyond acceptable limits through a new fraudulent category of “public interest” projects. Even the British never did this.
The rehabilitation provided by the Bill is certainly not fair, nor adequate for an alternative livelihood. Cash being no option, land for land as provided in the 2007 policy (with “may” as a prefix) is also not in the amended bill. How can the government not have enough land for rehabilitation, when it can and does purchase thousands of acres of land for private corporations and entities? Also, why is no one talking about rehabilitation of those already displaced? Make the law applicable with retrospective effect and include all other Acts with the “acquisition” clause under the new Act.
The present Bill has gone through certain improvements based on our critique and the recommendations of the Standing Committee, yet it falls far short of what is required to protect natural and human resource-based communities and uphold truly democratic development planning. This is the view of the masses, not the corporates. On which side are the government and political parties? They can’t sit on the fence when farms are burning.
(Medha Patkar is a social activist and founder of Narmada Bachao Andolan and National Alliance of People’s Movements.)
Keywords: land acquisition, Land Acquisition Bill, Medha Patkar, agricultural land, rural development
The article has more emotion than facts. It would have been better if
she had responded to each argument in a point by point fashion, like the
Minister did in his article. This response seems merely a collage of
ideas. There is no disputing of the facts presented by the Minister in
this argument.
For the most part I believe Ms Patkar has lost the debate, yet she has
struck two crucial points.
One is that the part where the Bill says "pvt companies producing
public goods and services". Now as far as I know, there is a lot of
debate regarding what lies within the ambit of public goods and what
lies without. On paper the Bill makes a strong case and erects
insurmountable safeguards protecting land from being exploited for
profit of a few individuals but whether it will work in practice is a
doubtful matter.
The second part is the bit where she stresses that the govt should
primarily consider agricultural uses for land. If the cause is not one
of emergency or state security, then the acquisition of land for non-
agricultural purposes must be done as a last consideration, when all
possible agricultural purposes have been definitely ruled out. And
this needs stronger safeguards than "exceptional circumstances".
This cash for land is just a gimmick to wave some rupee notes in front of poor farmers
face who are hurting for quick cash to make ends meet. Most farmers are not even
aware that land in any town, even in remote areas is today selling at 4 to 7 lakhs per
cent! So when they take their few lakhs they are unable to even rent a place in any city
or town and end up in desperate situations. The Government's policy of ignoring the
rampant hoarding of land and allowing people with black money to take over land in
small towns has ended up in people ALL OVER the country DESPERATE for a roof over
their heads. Not surprising North Easterners returned so eagerly to their homes. Why
work so hard just for a tiny room rental in South India? Not surprising thousands
turned out in Gujerat to collect forms promised by the Modi govt for low cost
affordable homes. Instead THEY WERE LATHI CHARGED! Yet this Prime Ministerial
aspirant treats big business with great ceremony and throws land at them eagerly
I am a farmer's daughter and I know their plights.Our land has been been sacked in U.P. (District Kushinagar ),the farmers are protesting but Government officials constantly forcing and coaxing them.Fortunately Medha Patkar was also there during one of the processions held by them and she was overwhelmed seeing illiterate and poor womens, childrens and peasants against such a strong system. The question is "is it really about development ?"and "is it legitimate?".First of all when agricultural land is sacked you loose the produce which is the only mean of livelihood,and what kind of development is that that you can not even feed yourself ?And secondly it is fundamentally wrong that a land could be acquired for religious purpose.The aquisition has its social effects too,the landless farmers become labourers or vagabonds and then the real sufferings start.
Why is Medha Patkar against public private partnerships? A poor country
like India needs to find innovative ways to fund its growth. If a PPP
project to build roads needs to acquire land, what is wrong in that?
I have always lived in urban India, and I possibly do not understand the
myriad problems in the heartland. For the same reason, I wish the above
response contained examples and figures, not just accusations. Jairam's
response was much more comprehensible, in this sense.
100 percent I agree with Ms Medha Patkar. Both her first article and this rebuttal are excellent masterpieces highlighting the plight of poor landowners and farmers who depend on land for their subsistence. How can a govt elected by people function as agent for Corporates acquiring land forcefully? This must stop forthwith lest the consequences would be dire when the affected people unite and wake-up.
Rehabilitation of poor is the most important thing government must consider before bringing this law in. After all, they should be focussed for development of the nation as a whole not just rich industrialists.Urbanisatiuon is always welcome but not on the cost of lack of basic amenities for the poor.
I am not making any comment of the proposed legislation. I only wish to make a few
observations-India is a Finite land mass with limitations on arable land.India's
population which was around 500 mln at the time of our Independence is today 1.2
Bln. and growing at 1.4 %. The life expectancy has grown from 35 to 65 and still
growing. One can project what that will all be by 2050 and 2075. The average
consumption of food both in quantity and quality is developing with increasing well
being of our population. Our food and job requirements will only increase and not
decrease. We need to see these against the background of Global warming and its
consequences which will have their impact also on all that we wish to happen in
India. Urbanisation is a human aspiration and we cannot stop that. We want better
health care and that will improve our longevity and the population. These are just
some of a few aspects that any Govt and its critics needs to take care in planning for
its citizen.
Excellent and on the spot. Very befitting reply. I think the honorable minister and his colleagues are trying to justify all the favors to the private sector in the garb of development. Ms. Patekar rightly says that the government represents masses and not corporates, so it must be for the people and not against.
Jai Hind. Satyamev Jayate.
Please Email the Editor