Land Acquisition: The battle for land will intensify

Protesting farmers spending the night at Parliament Street in New Delhi. March 18. 

For the past three days, thousands of farmers from across the country, and owing allegiance to Bharti Kisan Union, are staying put at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. With distress written large on their faces, they are hoping that the government they voted for would at least have the courtesy to listen to them. Their anger is over an unjust law that they fear will forcibly evict them from their meager land holdings, and also they came hoping to seek some assurance from the powers that be for ending the continuing agrarian distress that they are living with.

A fortnight earlier, nearly 5,000 tribals under the banner of Ekta Parishad had also marched to New Delhi to join the two-day protest by Anna Hazare and others against the land acquisition bill. But with indifferent State machinery, and with an equally indifferent middle class, they found they had no sympathetic ears to allow them to even share their sufferings. Not even the national media, barring a few exceptions, took notice.

The disconnect between the middle class in the cities and the poor and marginalized in the rural areas, including 600 million farmers and the landless farm workers, is now becoming loud and distinct. For all practical purposes, the divide between India and Bharat that has been talked about for long is now clearly visible.

It is primarily for this reason that the debate over land acquisition fails to move beyond growth and development. In the race to build more infrastructure, the cries of poor and marginalized who are struggling to make the two ends meet gets drowned. The tribals who walked all the way to New Delhi or the farmers who are protesting at Jantar Mantar and also at a number of places across the country are therefore being considered as a hindrance in the development process. They are a roadblock, the sooner they are removed, and faster will be the pace of development.

For several years now, since the time economists/planners began telling us that land is an economic asset and it is unfortunately in hands of people who are inefficient, there has been literally a scramble by business and industry (driven by real estate) to procure as much as possible. The World Bank is backing this strategy, and if you have read the World Development Report 2008, you would know what I mean. It calls for land rentals, and setting up a network of training centres to train the displaced farmers to become industrial labour.

No wonder, the UPA government has made budgetary provisions for setting up 1,000 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs). Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself had called for a population shift, moving out 70 per cent of the farming community into urban centres. This is what the World Bank had wanted India to do way back in 1996. It had wanted India to move 400 million people – twice the combined population of UK, France and Germany – to be moved out of the villages in the next 20 years, by 2015.

It’s all therefore part of a global design. All over the world pitched battles are being fought across nations by the poor and deprived, who fear further marginalisation when their land is literally grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. It first begins by deliberately turning agriculture into a losing proposition as a result of which farmers, in most places, are keen to move out provided they get a better price for their land. Once this happens, it is much easier to drive out the farmers from their land holdings.

But it’s not as simple as it appears to be. Land being the only economic security for the poor, they put up a tough fight. In China, as Fareed Zakaria wrote in Newsweek sometimes back, 75,000 land conflicts, which means almost 250 protests a day, most of them bloody, happen every year. A recent report states that 28 lakh villagers have committed suicide in China in past 10 years. About 80 per cent of them did so because of forcible land takeover. Rural China has been on a boil all these years. In India, there were 260 land protests in 165 districts in 2013-14. When the new land bill comes into force, I foresee the battle over land intensifying in India. India will soon turn into a land of thousand mutinies.  #

Source: Land Acquisition: The fight for land will only intensify.

ABPnewstv Mar 20, 2015. http://goo.gl/wKQXOJ

Land Acquisition: Let's have a land audit first.

In the days to come the battle over Land takeover is only going to be intensified, both in Parliament as well as on the streets. As various farmer organizations get ready to storm Jantar Mantar on Mar 18, and Anna Hazare planning a padyatra from Mar 30, the government itself is getting ready to face the tough challenge in Rajya Sabha where it lacks the numbers.

While the Lok Sabha passed the LandAcquisition bill with 11 minor amendments, most of these already existing in the 2013 law, the painstaking defense by Rural Development Minister Birender Singh has failed to cut much ice. In the shrieking debates and the deafening noise that preceded and still continues, the real issues behind the need for a law that allows forceful takeover of land have disappeared from public scrutiny. In this article I am trying to analyse some of the main arguments that have been floated to justify land acquisition without the consent of the farmer.

I hear again and again that the availability of land is coming in the way of development. Projects worth Rs 4-lakh crore are held up because of non-availability of land. While the government has failed to provide a list of projects that have been held up, Economic Survey 2015 does not list land as a limiting factor for infrastructure projects to take off. It states that the projects are held up because of unfavourable market conditions, and lack of investor interest. Secondly, if land availability was a factor I don’t see any reason why over 576 Special Economic Zones should have failed to perform.

A CAG report says that out of the 45,635.63 hectares of land notified for the development of SEZs, actual operations took place in only 28,488.49 hectares or 62 per cent of the land acquired. Neither did the SEZs create employment nor did it lead to manufacturing or industrial growth. And remember there was no environment clearance hurdle nor was there any social impact assessment required. Moreover, with all kinds of tax holidays, estimated to be in tune of Rs 1.75 lakh crore, the SEZs failed to perform. In a scathing comment, CAG says “Acquisition of land from the public by the government is proving to be a major transfer of wealth from the rural populace to the corporate world.”

I don’t think the government even knows how much of land already acquired is lying vacant. An investigation by a TV channel found that nearly 45 per cent land acquired in just five States is lying unused. In Orissa, for example, 3799 acres acquired for TISCO steel plant in Gopalpur in 1995 has still not been used. 

In any case, the government is eyeing 17 lakh acres of surplus land lying with public sector undertakings. With so much of land already available, I don’t see any reason why the available surplus land is not first put to proper use.

Further, the argument that the 2013 law needed to be changed since the Chief Ministers wrote against it is simply amusing. Let us not forget that the Chief Ministers of the coal mining States also opposed open auction of the coal blocks. But after a Supreme Court order cancelled 204 coal blocks, the auctions that are underway are likely to bring in revenue of Rs 15-lakh- crore. I wonder why in a market economy, where free enterprise is being promoted, the private sector can’t be asked to bid for land in open auctions taking the prevailing market price as the base price.

A study by IIT Roorkee estimates that in past 50 years some 50 million people have been displaced by ‘development projects’. With the oustees of Bhakra dam and Pong dam still not rehabilitated, land conflicts have erupted primarily because the government forcibly takes over land for the private entities in the name of ‘public purpose’. As several CAG reports have found out that the land acquired has finally gone into the hands of real estate firms who have made fortunes.

In 2013-14, a study by Washington-based Rights and Resources initiative found 252 conflicts over land acquisition. A Newsweek article sometimes back had pointed to 75,000 land conflicts, most of them bloody, in China every year. A recent report states that 28 lakh villagers have committed suicide in China in past 10 years. About 80 per cent of them did so because of forcible land takeover. Lawmakers in India therefore need to be doubly concerned about the resulting socio-economic unrest.

Actually, the commodification of land is part of a global design. Globally, an area equivalent to the cultivable area of China and India has already been acquired by private capital. For India, it was in 1996 that the World Bank had asked to move 40-crore people – twice the combined population of UK, France and Germany – from the rural to the urban areas in next 20 years, by 2015. In 2008, the World Development Report of the World Bank had asked India to hasten the demographic shift by going in for land rentals. It is primarily for this reason that agriculture is deliberately being starved of resources, and farmers’ income is being kept low to force them to abandon farming and migrate.

Pitting agriculture against industrial development is a faulty debate. At a time when jobless growth is the norm anywhere and everywhere, industry cannot absorb even a fraction of the growing workforce. In past 10 years, between 2004 and 2014, only 1.5 crore jobs were created despite a high growth rate. Encouraging entrepreneurship in the rural areas and providing land to the landless is therefore the only sensible way to revitalize the economy. If the drought-prone village of Hibre Bazaar in Maharashtra can now boast of 60 lakhpatis, I see no reason why it can’t be the norm in the rest of the country. #

Land Acquisition: Will farmer get a compensation of 4 times the market value?

For the past few days the government has been at pains to explain that farmers will get a compensation of four times the market value of the land that is acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, popularly referred to as Land Acquisition Act.

Amid protests by farmers and civil society groups, the controversial Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 2015 to replace the contentious ordinance was introduced in Lok Sabha on Feb 24. It does not make any changes in the compensation clause in the 2013 Act that promises four times the market value of the land in rural and two times in the urban area for farmers whose land is acquired for industrial purposes.

Although the 2013 Act has still not been implemented, and an amendment is being sought on hypothetical fears expressed by the industry, I decided to find out whether the 2013 Act that the previous UPA government had passed would really provide four times the compensation to farmers whose lands would be acquired. Considering the widely prevailing impression in the social media that farmers were being adequately and fairly compensated for their land and so those who opposed the new law were ‘anti-farmer’ it became even more important to look at how the law would translate in reality whenever it is put in practice.

To understand this, I take you back to Section 26 of 2013 Act. It provides for determination of market value of land by Collector, stating: The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:-

(a) The market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or

(b) The average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or

                  (c)  Consented amount of compensation in the case of acquisition of land for private        

                         companies or for PPP 

It also explains in sub-section (1) that the average sale price referred to in clause (b) shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be made.

(1) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.

The First Schedule

2	Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural areas	1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on the distance of project from urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government.
3.	In the case of urban areas	1 (One)

An informal group of eminent citizens in Chandigarh, comprising senior lawyers, senior journalists, retired bureaucrats and others have been examining various agricultural laws from time to time. As a member of this citizens group, I requested former Agriculture Secretary (Punjab), Capt S S Dhillon and senior advocate of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Joginder Singh Toor, to help dissect the legal provisions of the 2013 Act.

As you know sale deeds are generally executed by the sub-registrar or Tehsildar under the Indian Stamp Act 1899.  Generally the collector rate is ½ or 1/3^rdof the prevailing market price.  If the market price is Rs 25 to Rs 30 lakh per acre, the collector rate is Rs 8/10/12 lakh. Taking the average of 3 years and multiplying it by a factor of 1 or 2 in rural areas. This discretion is left to the land acquisition officer. Even if he takes the maximum factor of 2, the value of land will be twice the collector rate.

In addition, the final award will include a ‘solatium’ (as specified in Section 30) equivalent to 100 per cent of the compensation amount.

The farmer therefore will either get a compensation equivalent to the prevailing market price or a maximum of twice the prevailing market price (if a factor of two is applied).  #

  

A starving proposition

Sowing trouble: Reckless acquisition of agricultural land imperils food security; call a halt to it before food bowls turn into begging bowls. 

Going by a Hindustan Times-GFK Mode opinion poll conducted across five worst affected villages in Aligarh and Gautam Budh Nagar districts of UP, more than 48 per cent farmers are willing to sell land. All they are looking for is a better compensation package.

The underlying message is loud and clear. Farmers are keen to dispense with their land because agriculture has turned into a losing proposition.

This quick market research reiterates the findings of an earlier National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) survey in which 42 per cent farmers had said that they would quit agriculture if given an alternative. Viewed in the light of the terrible agrarian distress reflected in the spate of farmer suicides across the country, the ongoing debate on land acquisition skirts the fundamental issues confronting the economic viability of the farm and the resulting food insecurity.

Cultivable land is being acquired for non-agricultural purposes at a frantic pace at a time when the country is struggling to meet the growing demand for food. If India is to meet  this basic need of its burgeoning population, it will have to bring more land under cultivation. For instance, we will have to set aside 200 lakh acres if we decide to grow domestically the pulses and oilseeds we import. 

Preserving productive agricultural land for cultivation assumes utmost importance. In the US, the federal government is providing US $ 750 million to farmers for the period 2008-13 under the Farm Bill 2008 to conserve and improve their grazing lands. The idea is to ensure that farmers do not divert the land for non-agricultural purposes. 

Why can’t India, too, make adequate investments to protect agricultural land? Why can’t it use the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY) exclusively to improve and preserve farm lands?

Economic development, unfortunately, has come to mean divesting of their meagre land holdings. Policymakers say that with rapid industrialization, average incomes will increase. As a result, people will have more money to buy food from the open market and make more nutritious choices. But the bigger question we have simply overlooked at our own peril is that from where will the additional food come from. 

In Andhra Pradesh, over 20 lakh acres has been diverted from agriculture to non-farm uses. In Haryana, over 60,000 acres has been acquired between 2005 and 2010. In Madhya Pradesh, over 11 lakh acres has been acquired for the industry in the past five years. Punjab, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhatisgarh, and Madhya Pradesh are building up "land banks" for the industry and Rajasthan has allowed the industry to buy land directly from farmers, setting aside the ceiling limit.

No one, in fact, has worked out as to how much agricultural land needs to be acquired to meet the industrial needs, and how much has actually been purchased. It is free for all; you can acquire as much land as you can. 

Rahul Gandhi himself has alleged that along the proposed Yamuna Expressway in UP, roughly 44,000 hectares of fertile farm land is being acquired for townships, industrial clusters, golf courses and an F1 racing track. My own analysis shows that of the total area of 198 lakh acres under food grain crops in UP, one-third or roughly 66 lakh acres will go out of production. This will mean a shortfall in foodgrain production in UP alone to the tune of 145 lakh tonnes.

Giving paramount importance to food security, we should draw a land use map for the country. There should be a moratorium on the sale of farm lands for non-agricultural activities, except for clearly defined ‘public’ purpose. The proposed Land Acquisition Bill must include provisions for enhancing farm incomes. At present the average monthly income of a farmer's family is Rs 2400. Even a peon in a government office is drawing Rs 15,000. A Farmer’s Income Guarantee Act is the answer. 

Source: Hindustan Times, Chandigarh

http://bit.ly/qx7TJD 

Hunger for more or more for hunger?

Incessant grabbing of productive farmland for more industry is a recipe for disaster

RURAL INDIA is on the boil. What we have seen in Greater Noida, Aligarh, Agra, Allahabad and Mathura in UP or Mansa in Punjab or Jaitapur in Maharashtra or Mangalore in Karnataka are mere representations of what’s happening far away from the glare of the national media. Pitched battles are being fought across the country by the poor who fear further marginalisation when their land is grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. Even a state like Madhya Pradesh, which otherwise seems relatively calm and untouched by the turmoil, has seen violent protests against forcible takeover of land. In five years, the clashes have multiplied from 67 in 2005 to 252 in 2009.

The builder-industrialist-politician nexus, often held responsible for landrelated agitations, finds a new player now. Ever since economists began telling us that land is an economic asset, which unfortunately, is in the hands of the inefficient, there has been a scramble by industry, driven by real estate, to procure as much as possible. Surprisingly, it is the World Bank that is backing this strategy. The World Development Report 2008 calls for land rentals and setting up training centres to train displaced farmers in industrial work.

State governments are facilitating the process of takeover. Whether it is for Special Economic Zones (SEZ) or IT parks or nuclear reactors or airports or even for bio-fuel plantations, the battle for land has become fierce. So powerful are these economic interests that many chief ministers have also been found suspect. Thanks to economists, the argument that industry is important for economic growth is coming in handy to usurp land, water and other natural resources.

Over the years, agriculture has been deliberately turned into a losing proposition. As a result, farmers in most places are keen to move out, provided they get a better price for their land. This is a global phenomenon. It is primarily for this reason that even in a highly subsidised Europe, where farmers receive direct income support, one farmer every minute is forced to quit farming. Agriculture is increasingly coming under big agribusinesses. The same trend is being adopted in India, which alone has one-fourth of the world’s farmers.

While good productive farmland is being diverted for non-agricultural purposes, there is no mention of the resulting disaster awaiting the nation as far as food security is concerned. As per rough estimates, 6.6 million hectares would be taken out of farming in UP, which would mean a production loss of 14 million tonnes of foodgrains. In other words, UP will be faced with a terrible food crisis in the years to come, the seeds for which are being sown now. The question no one is asking is who will feed UP?

What is not being realised is that crisis in that state alone will make all estimates of the proposed National Food Security Act go topsy-turvy. An economic superpower cannot be built on hungry stomachs. The need, therefore, is to immediately ban the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. This has to be followed with a comprehensive development planning Act that is people-friendly and replaces the draconian Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Devinder Sharma is food policy analyst.
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Op210511Hunger.asp

The emergence of two faces within Congress. People's voice getting stronger

I happened to listen to All-India Congress Committee general secretary Rahul Gandhi live on the TV when he addressed tribals in Lanjigarh in western Orissa yesterday. His combative speech, short and crisp, delivered the underlying message loud and clear. Development cannot be at the cost of people. He said he believed in development that did not ignore the voices of people. "In my religion, all are equal -- whether it is rich or poor, Dalits or Adivasis. Wherever as individual's voice is being stifled, that is against my religion."

Two days ago, Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh had rejected environment clearance for the London-based Vedanta bauxite mining project in Orissa.

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the continuing protests against acquisition of land for Yamuna Expressway in Uttar Pradesh, farmers protest reached the out gates of Indian Parliament in New Delhi yesterday. Backed by political parties of all hues -- Congress, BJP, CPM/CPI, JD(U), TDP, BJP and Akali Dal -- and led by Ajit Singh of Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), the demand for a new law for land acquisition gained political strength.

Speaking at the impressive rally, Ajit Singh said: "Yesterday, the prime minister announced that such a law will be introduced in the next session after a meeting with Rahul Gandhi. He should understand that he is not the prime minister for just Rahul Gandhi. He is my prime minister, your prime minister."

Is he people's prime minister? I very much doubt.

In my understanding, Manmohan Singh is the prime minister only of the industry and for the industry. He is a victim of the illusion created by GDP growth. Rahul Gandhi on the other hand has made him see the ground reality a number of times, and I appreciate his (Rahul Gandhi's) role in making the prime minister do certain things that he would otherwise never do.

Rahul Gandhi has often highlighted the real divide between the 'rich India and the poor India.' As he said in Orissa yesterday: "There are two India's -- Ameeron ka Hindustan (India of the rich) whose voices reach everywhere, and the Garibon ka Hindustan (India of the poor) whose voices are seldom heard.... Two years ago, you had come to me saying the Niyamgiri hill is your god. I told you I would be your soldier in Delhi. I am happy that I have helped you in whatever way I could. What is important is that your voice was heard without violence."

This is not the first time he has emphasised on the great divide. As the Indian Express says today (Aug 27, 2010) in a front page box:

------------------------------------------
His 2-India Refrain 

Parliament, Budget Debate, 2008-09: There are two distinct voices among India's people today. The louder of these voices comes from an India that is empowered .. the other voice is yet to be empowered. The two Indias are fundamentally inseparable. 

Kolkata, April 2009: it angers me when I think that there are people who have more money than anyone else in the world. And there are people who don't have food. 

Ranchi, October 2009: Two Indias have been created. One India is yours and my India, the India of opportunity...the other is of villages where opportunities are very rare.

Kanker (Chattisgarh), July 2010: There are two parts of India. One part is the part you see in urban areas, growing very fast. There is another part of India, a forgotten part of India, and tribals, Adivasis and Dalits are part of it.

-------------------------------

I have often been asked whether the sympathy that Rahul Gandhi for the poor and marginalised is only for winning elections. I am not sure what he has in his mind or why is he doing it but what is quite visible is that here is someone who is making the effort to not only reach out to the children of the lesser gods but also trying to understand them. Knowing his political future, the safe pathway that he has in front of him, it wasn't necessary for him to venture out into the countryside.

Having said that, I think Rahul Gandhi's actions and pronouncements (ostensibly backed by his mother Sonia Gandhi) are indicative of two faces within Congress party. One is the more visible and exploitative Corporate face -- led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P Chidambaram and the deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia -- and with most of the Cabinet ministers lending support, and for obvious reasons; the other is more sensitive to the existing ground realities, and is led by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, supported by Rahul Gandhi, Digvijay Singh, Jairam Ramesh and Mani Shanker Aiyer.

After being mesmerised by the growth figures for quite long, I think Sonia Gandhi has now begun to realise that all is not well. Growth is not only leading to widening of inequalities, but is also at the foundation for the growing socio-economic unrest. I am aware that if it were not for Sonia Gandhi, the UPA would have never approved NREGA, the Rs 71,000-crore farm loan waiver, refusing permission for a series of small dams on Ganga, and striking down the Vedanta mining project. The moratorium on India's first poisonous food crop -- Bt brinjal -- also was backed by 10 Janpath.

Now this does not in any way undermine the historic role played by tribal communities and people's movements across the country. I think behind the political realisation of the importance of environmental protection is the non-violent struggle by the masses for several years and in several parts of the country. They have succeeded somewhere, but have failed at most places. But slowly and steadily the world is beginning to realise that the poor are not merely an obstruction in development. They are the losers, and they need to be heard.

I for one would continue to support the mass struggles, and be part of the great awakening that emanates from Garibon ka Hindustan. This is where the future of any great country lies.