‘We’re not against industries but don’t want them at the expense of the poor’
Even as the Opposition parties are intensifying their attack on the Bharatiya Janata Partyled government at the Centre over the Land Acquisition Bill, it seems the government has finally managed to assuage the Sangh Parivar affiliates, including the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), which had earlier joined ranks with the Opposition over it. Though satisfied with the changes made in the legislation, SJM’s national convenor ASHWINI MAHAJAN in an interview to YOJNA GUSAI and PAWAN S. BALI, cautioned that the government should make sure that farmers and people at large are not affected by any acquisition of land. Just like the BJP, your organisation is also a part of the Sangh Parivar, yet you were opposing the amended Land Acquisition Bill along with the Opposition parties.
We are not a political organisation; we are associated with those who will be affected by this bill. The SJM, Akhil Bharatiya Rashtravadi Kisan Sangathan and some other organisations were concerned how the government can acquire land by not taking into consideration the social and economic impact it will have on the landowners. How can you do away with the social impact assessment that is also an important aspect of food security?
Earlier experiences of land acquisition in this country have not been very good. During her tenure as the Uttar Pradesh chief minister, Bahujan Samaj Party supremo Mayawati acquired large tracts of land — almost 10 kilometres on both sides of the proposed Yamuna Expressway. Do you need that much of land for an expressway? Therefore, our concern was that the purpose for which the land is required and how much land is required should be ascertained. We know India needs industrial corridors for which land is needed. But how much land is needed must be defined. This issue was not addressed in the ordinance. But, after it was raised by various organisations, the government agreed.
The government has been positive to all our concerns. We did use some strong words when the ordinance on the issue came because it raised many concerns. But when we discussed these with the government, it became clear and, yes, the government was very receptive. When it comes to development issues, I think politics should be kept aside. So you are in favour of social impact assessment for each and every project?
Yes, but only for either bigger projects, or those that will have an impact on farmers and fertile land. Assessment is not required for small projects where a few metres of land needs to be acquired. Your organisation has also raised concerns about the acquisition of fertile land.
India is losing its arable land to the concrete jungle and that is a matter of concern for our food security. India has a population of over 125 crore. If our agricultural land continues to decrease, then we will have to depend on other countries to feed our people. So fertile land should be acquired only in exceptional cases.
For instance, if a railway track is being laid and you need 500 metres of fertile land, then it is a necessity because you can’t divert the track for 500 metres to save that piece of fertile land. What do you have to say about the 13 acts exempted from the land bill?
We would like to congratulate the government for keeping out defence and other projects related to country’s security out of the bill’s purview. You cannot disclose the nature of a project if it is for some defence establishment. Pakistan gave shelter to Osama bin Laden for so many years and nobody came to know about it. So why should we make public what and where and how we will be building? While we all want transparency in governance, it cannot be at the expense of national security.
There were some suggestions that apart from rehabilitation, families of those affected by land acquisition should be given employment in industries and other such projects. And the Modi government has given its assurance. The SJM has been raising the issue of farmers, who will be rendered landless through land acquisition. This has given the impression that you are anti-industries.
This is a very wrong impression. We are not against industries that give employment to thousands of people and increase India’s gross domestic product. But we don’t want industries at the expense of the poor.
I want to quote from government data about landlessness. These facts are startling: Within a decade (2001-2010), the percentage of farmers from the Scheduled Tribes community came down from 44.7 to 34.5 per cent.
Similarly, among Scheduled Castes community, this figure came down from 20 to 14.8 per cent. The percentage of landless labours increased from 36.9 to 44.4 per cent while this figure saw a minimal increase among ST community, from 44.5 to 45.9 per cent.
But the reason for this minimal increase was that one was unable to acquire fertile land and that too in a tribal area. So the bigger concern is that we are losing land — fertile, cultivable, green land, and this is bad. The Congress, which is vehemently opposing the amended Land Acquisition Bill, had said that its version of the 2013 legislation was to address the issue of landlessness and had even cited the Bhatta Parsaul incident.
We were not opposing any legislation because it was initiated by a particular political party. Our opposition is to whether or not it is practical, whether it addresses the issue of procedural delays, whether it is benefiting industries or corporates at the expense of the poor and farmers.
The 2013 legislation was approved by Parliament and almost all political parties gave their nod. But nobody took note that if private entities want to set up a social infrastructure, like an educational institution or a hospital, then why should the government acquire land for it? Private players are in for making profit. Why should the government acquire land for them to make profit? Do you think the NDA government is pro-corporates? Some political parties have also alleged the same.
It is true that this country needs development, for which you require industrial corridors. If you set up an industrial corridor, corporates will come. But it is for the NDA government to make sure that this allegation doesn’t become a reality. It should not be seen siding with corporates while country’s poor suffer. There were allegations that special economic zones have become a way for land grabbing. Do you think land will not be misused under industrial corridors?
Industrial corridors have their work and land defined, for which land would be acquired. But yes, authorities need to remain alert. Perhaps, this was the reason why concerns were also raised on this issue. The passage of the bill looks difficult as almost the entire Opposition is against it.
This is a number’s game. It is for the government to see how it convinces or manages the Opposition. We are not a political organisation.
‘If you set up an industrial corridor, corporates will come. But it is for the NDA government to make sure that this allegation doesn’t become a reality. It should not be seen siding with corporates while country’s poor suffer.’