Cart before the bullock

NARENDAR PANI
TNN, DECEMBER 15

The response of the Left to the protests against the acquisition of land for the Tata car project at Singur has been marked by a degree of self-righteousness. The leaders insist industrialising West Bengal is a task that could not be put off any longer. And all those who stood to lose their land in the cause of industrialisation have been adequately compensated, whether they are land-owners, sharecroppers or landless labourers. Not surprisingly, the protests are being dismissed as being provoked by a frustrated political opposition. But before the Left takes comfort from conspiracy theories it must ask itself whether it has taken into account all the aspects of a farmer’s life that are affected by the forcible takeover of his land. And if it has the vision to look beyond the immediately economic, it will realise that agriculture has many functions in a farming community. West Bengal is not the first state government to ignore this multifunctionality — to use a term the French used in the WTO. But as one that has relied on the rural population to keep it in power for decades it may well have the most to lose. The Left may not share the instinctive distrust many others have for forcible takeover of land. The remnants of its ideology would convince its leaders that displacing a few should not come in the way of modern industrial growth. It is then quite easy for the party to see in the number of those who have given their consent and collected their compensation, a complete acceptance of the government’s decision to forcibly acquire land for the project. A party worker on the ground may be able to understand why a farmer who is distinctly unhappy about his land and livelihood being taken away has to collect the compensation, as otherwise the very survival of his family will be threatened. But this would be considered collateral damage by the more ideologically inclined party bosses. If, however, the Left wants to treat Singur as a model of the way it would like to deal with the larger rural crisis, the mood could change quite dramatically. It is becoming increasingly clear that agriculture cannot sustain the 700 million people who live in the rural areas. The assured market conditions that created the Green Revolution are no longer sustainable. And as farmers come up against the full range of fluctuations of market prices, the very instruments the government uses to help farmers can themselves become counter productive. Easy access to substantial loans, for one, becomes a millstone around the farmer’s neck when a crash in prices leaves him severely indebted. The government could respond by changing the instruments of intervention. It could help reduce the risk farmers have to take by stepping up crop insurance and by providing them access to futures markets. But it is doubtful if even a stable agriculture can provide the entire economic sustenance the rural economy is expected to provide.

The area under principal crops has remained stagnant for decades and yields have not grown rapidly enough to meet the income needs of the growing rural population. There is clearly then a need to reduce the number of people dependent on agriculture. But the procedure that is being followed by all state governments of forcibly taking over land, after providing compensation, can prove disastrous if the scale of such acquisitions increases as rapidly as is being promised. What is considered a fair compensation is itself not beyond debate. The acquired land will almost inevitably increase in value. Industry will argue that it is their investment in the land that has caused this increase. But farmers are unlikely to recognise such nuances. And if they choose to get into the economics of the argument they could insist they would have got a lot more if the market value was in fact the price of the land after various industries competed to buy it in a free market, and not the value at which the government decided to acquire it. These narrow economic calculations also ignore the fact that agriculture is often the only means of livelihood available to the farmer. His access to education is so poor that it challenges his ability to effectively invest his compensation. And if he chooses to keep it in a bank the overall regime of lower interest rates will hardly provide an income he would have, on his own, considered giving up his land for. The real challenge though lies outside the immediate economics of the transactions. Agriculture also plays the role of determining an individual’s status in rural society. A successful farmer is often expected to be able to provide credit to others in the village who might need it. The significance of this role is painfully evident when farmers who are expected to provide loans, find themselves unable to repay bank loans following plummeting prices. Too often they see themselves as having no option other than suicide. The variation in status determined by the relationship to agriculture goes all the way down the hierarchy, so that there is often a perceived difference between a relatively small farmer and a landless agricultural labourer. A state government’s forced acquisition of land removes that distinction at one stroke. If at all jobs are provided for those who are displaced, they have nothing to do with the status the person held in an agriculture-dominated society. The process of removing people from agriculture must then recognise not just the economic role of agriculture but also its social influence. One way of ensuring the changing social structures are relatively less tense would be to ensure that people choose to come out of agriculture. This would involve providing them economic opportunities that are consistent with a modern economy. This would require a string of initiatives ranging from education to incubators that allow entrepreneurship to mature. As the protests over land acquisition grow across the country state governments that want to avoid social turmoil will have to recognise that people have to be drawn out of agriculture before their land is acquired and not the other way round.