Whose land is it anyway?

The state can be forced to the negotiating table if the farmers put up a united front

Efforts to circumvent the ban on forcible acquisition of agricultural land for Special Economic Zones (SEZs) have gathered steam, with the proposal to allow development agencies to acquire land for SEZs in notified areas. The scheme is on the government’s agenda, despite — or perhaps, due to —  the recent setbacks suffered by the SEZ lobby in persuading farmers to part with their land.

State governments are currently banned from “compulsory acquisition” of land for SEZs. The Union ministry of commerce argues that development agencies (like DDA, NOIDA and APIDC) which notify, acquire and own the land in their jurisdiction and lease it out to end users, should be permitted to acquire land for SEZs.

In its note to the Group of Ministers, the ministry of commerce states: “It is proposed to issue instructions that acquisition of land for the purpose of use of SEZ by Development Agencies will not fall under the term ‘compulsory acquisition’ as in these cases no private individual can purchase land for such activity”.

Stripped of technicalities, this tantamounts to forcible acquisition of land, simply by changing the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural. This and other proposals to dilute the ban need to be evaluated in the light of public response to SEZs, notably the Raigad Referendum. The farmers’ resounding rejection of the proposed Reliance SEZ highlighted their resistance to alienation from the land.

The tussle for land between agriculture and industry merits a strong response from the state, one which respects the rights of all the stakeholders. So far, the state has intervened on the side of industry and against the farmers.

Barmer in Rajasthan is a classic instance. The Vasundhara Raje government sought to railroad through a power and mining project on behalf of the Jindal group. The farmers, thanks to pro-active support from their MP, Manvendra Singh, fought the move.  A compromise was suggested whereby the farmers would lease their land to the company, rather than have it wrested from them. The modalities are reportedly being worked out.
For farmers, the lessons from Raigad and Barmer are clear: the state can be forced to the negotiating table if the farmers put up a united front and demand that their rights be respected.

Widespread criticism of forcible land acquisition by state governments for SEZs and other commercial ventures prompted the Ministry of Commerce to deny approval to such projects. This was apparently dictated by the (political) good sense of Congress president Sonia Gandhi. The onus for land acquisition was shifted from state governments to the promoters.

In some cases, SEZ-enamoured state governments have ignored the central government directive. But with elections imminent, the Centre cautioned state governments that it would not approve SEZs on land that had been compulsorily acquired. That has not stopped corporate interests from seeking ways and means to dilute the ban on forcible land acquisition.

Tata’s West Bengal experience has generated media sympathy for corporate houses who wish to set up projects on fertile agricultural land. Tata’s votaries agree that projects on non-cultivable wasteland (rather than three-crop farmland) are preferable, but they also insist that the needs of industry must be put before that of agriculture.
That is the crux of the problem. Land is the chief determinant of food production. Per capita availability of arable land has fallen from 0.27 hectares in 1982 to 0.18 hectares in 2003. Already, India is a net importer of pulses and oilseeds and more recently, has had to go shopping for wheat.

Unless India wishes to become import-dependent, incursions into cultivable land by industry and urban development must be limited to vital projects. A car factory doesn’t exactly qualify as “vital”.

Farmers’ sentiments must also be taken into account. While some are willing to exchange ancestral land for cash, many are not. They see land as a permanent means of livelihood. The capital has witnessed a month-long agitation by the farmers of Kanjhawla against acquisition of their land.

The state has ostensibly attempted to strike a balance between the needs of farmers and those of industry through the proposed amendment to the Land Acquisition Act. For example, the new Land Acquisition Bill permits state governments to acquire land for commercial ventures like SEZs, provided the promoters have already managed to purchase 70 per cent of the land from willing landowners. This has attracted a lot of criticism, as has the provision barring disputes from the jurisdiction of the civil courts.
In its present form, the Bill does not hold out any promise of resolving the tug of war over land. Only a shift in attitudes to the farm sector and sensitivity to the needs of farmers can do that.

The writer is a commentator on social affairs.