Proper compensation can ease land acquisition
T he recent farmer-police clash in Unnao has once again raised the question about the compensation given to farmers in lieu of their land.
It is indispensable to know the relationship between land and the government to understand the political economy of land acquisitions.
For a long time, the government has been a key determinant and controller of the land. The government determines how business and markets operate through laws and institutions.
The government in India from pre-colonial to contemporary times has set the conditions for the operations of the land market through laws and policies on ownership, taxes, subsidies, land use and acquisition.
The nature and relationship of the government with land have changed a lot.
Many new rules regarding land and economy were made by the British government. When the British quit India, they left behind an economy scarred by two centuries of policies that aimed to put the empire first.
The increasing population of cities and continuous urban expansion have also taken their toll on the farmers as land has rapidly been acquired.
Forcible eviction of peasants and harsh labour laws have been deployed to attract capital for provinces.
Nandigram illustrates this very well. States are being encouraged to free up extensive parcels of land and de-facto fiefdoms of private capital.
This, in effect, is the remit and purpose of the roughly 300 special economic zones that were formed between 2005 and 2007 under the act by that name.
However, the national commission on agriculture (1976) emphasised scientific land use planning for achieving food security, self-reliance and enhanced livelihood security. The national policy for farmers (2007) has recommended revival of existing land use Boards and their linkage to district-level land-use committees so that they can provide quality and proactive advice to farmers on land use. Between 1950/51 and 2007/08, land utilisation in India underwent significant changes. While forests and non-agricultural uses have increased, the lands under other uses, including the lands under net sown area, have almost halved from 40.7% to 22.6%.
It implies that for future land demands, the forest lands and the agricultural lands may have to be used (draft, national land utilization policy, 2013).
Rural people don’t depend on agriculture anymore as it is not a profitable occupation, particularly after urbanisation. The villagers are now adopting alternative occupations for they need money.
Land has now become a capital for investing in transport and other such businesses.
MANY NEW RULES REGARDING LAND AND ECONOMY WERE MADE BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. WHEN THE BRITISH QUIT INDIA, THEY LEFT BEHIND AN ECONOMY SCARRED BY TWO CENTURIES OF POLICIES THAT AIMED TO PUT THE EMPIRE FIRST.
During my PhD fieldwork, I found that the selling of land in fringe areas of Lucknow was providing peasants the opportunity to invest in their needs which were earlier not possible to afford by depending on agricultural produce only. The new occupations available in cities are profitable and thus becoming more important.
It prompts people to show lesser interest in agriculture. Contrary to the earlier situation where whole family used to be involved in agriculture, now that level of participation has ceased to exist.
This may be one of the causes for the decrease in the agricultural production in villages. It is a structural shift in social values as well as in land.
Although since independence, ninety per cent land has been taken by the government, the conflicts over land are primarily between the private sector and locally-affected population.
The Nadigram, Singur, Vedanta and Maha Mumbai stories are all conflicts between the private capital and peasants with the government acting as an agent of land acquisition for the private capital at some point in all situations.
There is a great deal of public debate on the issue of crony capitalism in India. Maybe, this is a factor behind lobbying for an easy land acquisition act.
In this context, contrary to the national situation, in the two villages which I studied peasants are willing to sell their land to private builders and they fear to give their land to government agencies.
They feel the government is least bothered to compensate the appropriate amount while they can get good amount from private builders.
In most protests against land acquisition (Yamuna Expressway, Singur) less compensation has been the main issue.
In cases where the land acquisition projects succeed after negotiations, it is possible only when the buyers and sellers found the right price of land.
As is obvious from the example of Tata Motors, which relocated its factory in Sanand (Gujarat) after it pulled out of Singur and state government paid between Rs 55 and 70 lakh per acre for land acquisition and faced no trouble at all.
It is true that in no case we should compromise with the development of the nation but it is also true that we cannot deprive the tillers of the land without proper compensation and rehabilitation.