Reform of sorts

The Statesman, 23 January

The recent controversy over land acquisition for industry has agitated the landowners as much as the intelligentsia. The matter should be viewed from two perspectives ~ local interest and national development. The intelligentsia must highlight the social, economic and political implications of an alternate use of land in a particular locality vis-a-vis the beneficiaries and losers of the land.

The possible political impact also needs to be considered as there are records of ghastly incidents in different parts of the country since the days of Partition in 1947 and the subsequent rise of political extremism and violence. Land is a gift of nature, but its characteristics aren’t uniform everywhere. Several states in India are now grappling with the problem of alternate use. things might have been easier today if all state governments had prepared a land policy at the beginning of the five-year Plan era in the fifties. A land use board was set up by government of West Bengal in the early sixties. It is doubtful if the government accepts the board’s recommendations with due respect. Very probably it does not. One is hardly surprised over the recent controversy over Singur or Nandigram.

Not per rule

The acquisition process as prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has not been strictly adhered to. The government of West Bengal did not follow all the steps prescribed in the LA Act and instead asserted its administrative high-handedness possibly because it is still obsessed with the message of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 which declared that the state has full authority over everything within the boundary of the state. This doctrine was challenged and proved to be wrong in the east European countries three decades back. Our comrades inspired by such doctrines still find it difficult to accept the prescriptions guiding the relationship between the state and its citizens in a laisse-faire political system.

The government’s claim that a large number of landowners of Singur offered land voluntarily does not reveal the whole truth. Many of these landowners lost their operational rights over land and were not getting their due share from the bargadars. As a matter of fact they simply owned the ownership title. This acquisition process and offer of compensation came as a boon and they lost no time collecting their compensation cheques. They were virtually evicted when the barga movement was at its during 1978-85. The persons evicted or about to be evicted by the current wave of acquisition present operators/ bargadars and thousands of unskilled labourers.

A new model of land reform has emerged. Step-I entails the eviction of landowners (jotedars). Under Step-II, the barga rights to land operators/ sharecroppers and recording of ownership rights to landless agricultural labourers are recorded. Step-III involves eviction of bargadars and conferment of ownership rights of recipients under Step-II. Under Step-IV, vesting of all rights to state or state-owned corporation like the WBIDC is carried out through an acquisition process that is not transparent. non transparent and hasty acquisition process. Under Step-V, the land is handed over to the private sector or NRIs to set up industries or expand cities.

This completes the cycle of land reform in a Marxist state. A new community of land-owning zamindars thus replaces the zamindari system of the colonial era. And the consequences can be far-reaching in the absence of a socio-economic rehabilitation programme.

The government did not take the cabinet or the legislature into confidence while carrying out the task of acquisition. A hush-hush atmosphere prevailed. Both friends and foes of the government seized the opportunity and have made it a major political issue to the embarrassment of the government which in its haste didn’t bother to take a look at its own laws on conversion of agricultural land.

As regards modernisation of the agricultural sector, there are regions in India where the per hectare revenue is far higher than in West Bengal. The state government never considered the scope of “industrialisation of agriculture”. Instead, farmland is being acquired for industries that have no relevance to agriculture or its allied pursuits and the unskilled labour force attached to the agriculture sector.

Social and economic rehabilitation of those who will be affected has not been properly addressed by the government. Monetary compensation, whatever the amount, is no substitute for land in a society that has been traditionally dependent on land. Wrong policies or the absence of any definite policy for the rehabilitation of the refugees from erstwhile East Pakistan has not only ruined the economy of West Bengal but also resulted in the culture of jabar dakhal (forcible occupation).

No study has yet been made to know the fate of those affected at Chittaranjan or Durgapur or Salt Lake and elsewhere where people were evicted from land and the traditional avenues of employment either for setting up of industries or for expansion of cities. When shelter and livelihood become uncertain, the result can be violent extremism.

Needs a relook

It is imperative for the government to draft a firm land-use policy. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 needs a relook as the so-called “public purpose” has not been well defined in the Act. The discretionary powers of the state may require to be restricted and the interests of private property owners must be guaranteed by curbing the power of the state authority.

All possibilities of higher investment in the primary sector for modernisation of agriculture and allied activities need to be explored to absorb the surplus manpower. This is not an impossible task. Unutilised or under-utilised land in the hands of individuals or private companies requires tough measures for utilisation. There are thousands of acres of such land lying idle for decades.

Land policy and development of a state should not be considered in isolation. India is a vast country and no state should imagine that it can mechanically develop on the lines of another state.

There are some natural and unavoidable constraints. So every state must decide how best it can utilise its own resources. The problems of a particular state can be solved with the cooperation of other states.