BJP’s Narendra Modi led Government
of India introduced amendments initially through an ordinance in Dec 2014 and on
24th Feb 2015 introduced Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 2015 in the
Lok Sabha. While the opposition parties, farmers associations and organisations
are branding changes proposed through the ordinance to the Land Acquisition Act
2013 as ‘anti-farmer’ or Land Grab Bill of India, the government claims that
the new amendments will benefit farmers.
Fact: The Land Acquisition Act 2013 was originally introduced and passed
by the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government in 2013, replacing the Land
Acquisition act of 1894. For the first time in recent 2-3 decades of law making
in India, Land Acquisition Act of 2013 was passed after wide ranging
consultation with various stakeholders involved and with active participation,
and support of BJP (which was in opposition and UPA-2’s lack of parliamentary
numerical strength meant BJP’s support was crucial to get the law passed), The
Act of 2013 was studied in greater detail within the parliamentary standing
committee for 2 long years before being introduced and passed in 2013 (with
active consent and support of BJP).
On 24th February 2015
BJP’s Modi led Govt of India introduced Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment)
Bill, 2015 proposing changes to the act which was passed in 2013. BUT the Fact is the Land Acquisition
Act 2013 has not been fully implemented across the country due to various
reasons such as elections across different states, famed un-responsive Indian
bureaucracy and eventually culminating in the announcement of 2014 Lok sabha
elections.
The above move of the Govt of
India led by Narendra Modi has generated a huge hullabaloo across the political
spectrum and ruckus within the farming community across India. The government
believes its decision is in many ways a course correction to the 2013 Act
passed by UPA as it was deemed (or may I say allegedly deemed) as restrictive
by India Inc and its various industry bodies. But the govt’s decision has
increased apprehensions within the farming community that they may yet be left
high and dry (in spite of the law providing suitable levels of compensations).
The Pro’s and Con’s of the proposed amendment to that of the 2013
original land acquisition act are:
Why BJP
think’s changes are pro farmer and yet pro investors = Getting the balance
right
|
Why farming
community think, govt amendments are anti-farmer & pro-crony capitalists
|
The Land Acquisition Act 2013 passed by UPA kept
most frequently used acts for Land Acquisition out of the purview of the act.
These acts include:
These acts are applicable for national highways, railways,
energy projects, electricity related projects, and general infrastructure
related projects etc.
The proposed amendments brings all those exempted
from the 2013 act under the purview for the purpose of compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement. Therefore, the amendment benefits farmers
and affected families.
|
Farmers welcome the move to include the 13 acts for
which land acquisitions are made. There is no opposition to this per say!
BUT why remove
for sectors namely industrial corridors, Public
Private Partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defense.
Historically across India, it is the
PPP projects or projects launched and carried out by the govt which have taken
more time, money, money and resources to complete and deliver the objectives
set out. The delays benefit not the farmers who have given their land, or the
general public for whom the govt undertakes these projects but private parties who
are contracted out to carry out the works! Here is lies the fault lines.
Further-more if the projects are
of strategic importance why aren’t or shouldn’t it be completed within 5yrs? If
they can’t be complete and if there is enough progress, what is the harm in
taking re-consent? If re-consent are taken, then at least there is transparency,
efficiency and honesty on project delivery. Also there has been no example of
any farmer saying no to parting land if it is of national importance or
strategic development (as they are being compensated subject to social impact
assessment).
In UK for example to put up a
small scale shopping mall or a high rise, the project doesn’t get cleared if in
excess of 30% raise concerns and object. This is done primarily to empower the
people and to make them party to the development process.
One doesn't need to look too far and wide to see why farmers are opposing the removal of consent. As I come from Bangalore, Karnataka, India - if one looks at land prices around Bangalore airport, new IT & BT parks, Bangalore-Mysore corridor, airports across all district headquarters etc just to name a few. In all the above projects more than required land has been acquired, projects have invariably not been completed on time (loss to the Govt), crony capitalists in the form of real estate mafia has taken over the surroundings thanks to the help of fear mongering via Survey Dept of various govts who covertly support such activities, resulting in farmers seeing their land being developed and appreciated 5-10x times in a span of few years. Whereas farmers aren't part or any upsides nor do they get sustainable and self respectable jobs! If one looks around Bangalore airport, most farming community children are now working as cleaners, sweepers and or doing petty menial jobs - whereas in the past they were self-employed earning their own living through agricultural means!
Look at the below link on how Adani Group got land at cheapest prices and more than 50% of it is not been put to use! http://wap.business-standard.com/article/companies/adani-group-got-land-at-cheapest-rates-in-modi-s-gujarat-114042501228_1.html
So removing consent merely shows that the government wants to enforce its decision without really taking into account the interests of the people but indirectly help contractors and crony capitalists to be part of the game-plan!
|
The new amendments removes social impact assessment
& 80% consent clause, potentially allowing a fast track process for
national strategic issues in defense production, rural
infrastructure electrification, affordable housing, industrial corridors and
infrastructure projects including projects taken up under Public Private
Partnership mode.
|
Social impact assessment is a key
factor going forward given the haphazard manner in which development has taken
place in India (for example just look at
how cities have grown, infrastructure lacking thanks to bad if not no
planning), thus there is enough case to make social impact assessment. If such
acquisition is done in rural areas and areas where adivasi’s live, they shall
not just loose their livelihood, but the very habitat they and their ancestors
have inhabited for many decade, hence social impact assessment makes logical
sense.
There is no example across India on farming
community being taken on board and projects being approved in consultation
with them post scientific assessment of social, economic & environmental
issues concerning the community or the surroundings.
The govt should not forget its fundamental duty
is towards its citizens and they need to be involved in the decision making
process when issues are concerned about their livelihood!
Example to consider – Land in Gubbi Taluk has
been earmarked to build new manufacturing facility for HAL – there was very
little opposition from farmers to let go of the land for strategic reasons,
as the said land was not suitable for agriculture. Whereas if the same land was to be highly
irrigatable then it would be a cardinal sin to have acquired such land, as
farmers would have earned their living with self-respect!
|
Send positive message to India Inc and more so to
the investor community about removing potential procedural bottlenecks that
has been the hallmark of any infrastructure investment in India.
|
Good that the govt wants to send
a positive message to free market believers. BUT why is the very same govt not
taking the concerns of farming community?
According to free market economics, every project should be looked in terms of RoI - so the govt should consider sustainable economic package for farming community whose land has been acquired. I don't see any aspects of sustainable economic package being talked in the proposed amended bill.
Whereas in the 2013 Act there were enough checks & balances to ensure farming community interest was at the heart of the law.
|
No changes to the compensation levels when
compared to the 2013 act. The compensation package remains the same. 4 times
the market price for rural and 2 times for urban land.
|
Welcome move – BUT here again are two issues:
|
Selling the story of having heard to the
investors’ concerns and reacted to ensure a conducive environment for overall
development
|
The move of the Govt appeases the crony
capitalists who want all sorts of sops for them but oppose sops or benefits
given the weaker sections and the farming community.
Govt should include representatives of the farmers during project clearances else restore the 80% consent levels, social impact assessment and 5yrs return policy! |
The Govt of India under Narendra
Modi should not forget the following basic facts of farming community:
- Farmers should be treated as self-employed
- Majority of Indian farmers own less than 5 acres of land – so any land that is taken from them needs to be well reasoned out in consultation with them. There needs to be a holistic sustainable socioeconomic package for farming community whose land is acquired with due consultation and involving them appropriately in the decision making process as on the ground level they are the ones who get affected the most
- Farmers are the only section of the value chain who can’t set their own price for products they grow? Whereas India Inc has all the rights to set their own price based on manufacturing costs.
None of the above is against any
free market economic principles – so why is the Govt taking hasty steps to
overtly please India Inc.
Finally the original land acquisition of 2013 has hardly been rolled out and implemented uniformly across India, then why such an urgency to make any changes to the original law? What learning's or studies are these changes based upon? The changes proposed though tries to strike the balance between farmers, govt & private parties it has ended up merely as a knee jerk reaction to placate Indian Inc and its bandwagon, crony capitalists at the cost of the farming community. The farmers had taken solace in the fact that the originally bill of 2013 kept the interest of the farming community at the very heart of the decision making process.
Finally the original land acquisition of 2013 has hardly been rolled out and implemented uniformly across India, then why such an urgency to make any changes to the original law? What learning's or studies are these changes based upon? The changes proposed though tries to strike the balance between farmers, govt & private parties it has ended up merely as a knee jerk reaction to placate Indian Inc and its bandwagon, crony capitalists at the cost of the farming community. The farmers had taken solace in the fact that the originally bill of 2013 kept the interest of the farming community at the very heart of the decision making process.