It’s not hammer vs sickle

Laveesh Bhandari
Indian Express, March 16

There were 141.1 million hectares of net sown area as per the Ministry of Agriculture in 2000-01. There were 127.3 million cultivators and 106.8 million agriculture labourers as per the Census of India. Do the math, and the low area per farmer is quite apparent. And it is falling rapidly for many reasons. Farmers are increasing, and of course requirements for non-agriculture uses are reducing the amount of arable land available. The Nandigram problem is just one outcome of the difficulties of rapid growth.

There are many aspects to this problem. The first is the fear that it has to do with ‘prime agriculture land’. There is no doubt that cities tend to be located near rivers and water bodies, and much of the land around many, if not most, cities tends to be of the highly productive variety. Industrial and other commercial activities (that require to be close to large concentrations of people) will need to access more and more such land close to cities. Therefore, yes, increased economic growth will create pressures to convert agriculture land to non-agriculture land around cities. And some, if not a large part, of this will be ‘prime’.

The second is that because of this India’s food security would be at stake. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indian agriculture is currently among the lowest in terms of productivity (yields), and this productivity is bound to increase in the near future. Any loss in agriculture land would be more than offset by agriculture productivity increases. Space constraints prevent me from giving international yield comparisons across a range of agri-commodities.

The third is that we are going to be converting agriculture land to industrial/commercial land. This again is only very partially true. A look at land use data (from the Ministry of Urban Development) from some of our largest cities shows that industry accounts for barely 5 to 10 per cent of the area — and other commercial activities, less than 5 per cent. Factories and malls are just more visible, but the big-ticket items are housing and transport. They together account for 50 to 70 per cent of the land.

The question here is between spread and concentration. It is well-known that the more we try to geographically spread industry and commerce, the more land we will require. And the more we try to concentrate it around larger cities, the less land we will require. Why? Concentration requires fewer nodes to connect, so the requirement for roads and public transport is lower. Concentration also makes it economically feasible to build high-rises. The net takeover of agriculture land is therefore lower.

The fourth issue is that of low agriculture productivity compared to its high resource use. Agriculture is the highest user of land; agriculture is also the highest user of water. Compared to the income generated, industry and trade are much more land and water resource efficient. (And yes, agriculture is also a major contributor to greenhouse gases and air/water pollution.)

Whichever way we see it, land for industry, commerce, housing and transport will need to be made available. This broadly encapsulates the view of the right.

But that is less than half the story. There is also a human element with economic and social ramifications. The critical issue here is that the farm land is also associated with farming as an occupation. When we take away the land, we also take away the occupation. And as many anthropologists will tell you, a farming household is very different in character from a non-farm household. So when we take away the occupation, we also impact the household’s very character. In other words, when we convert agriculture land we take away from a household its main asset, its main source of income, its main occupation; we change its lifestyle, and we change its very character. The insecurity as reflected in the Nandigram fiasco is therefore but natural. And therefore it should not be surprising to see farmers, their wives and children, all vehemently protesting against such a takeover. Keep in mind the fact that most of the protesters were settled on their lands by the CPM without proper titles.
The human costs on farmer households are undoubtedly going to be high, and it will be impossible to quantify such direct and indirect costs in any unambiguous manner.

On the face of it therefore it appears to be quite an intractable problem for a society that wants to grow but still protect the interests of all. But there are several possible windows of opportunities and these are not mutually exclusive.

The first is related to providing adequate compensation to the farmer. And there are many different models that can ensure this. Broadly, they call for some mechanism by which the extra income and wealth generated on the land in its new use is shared with the farmer whose land has been taken over. This will ensure that the farmer household gets more than he gets conventionally.

The second is to find other locations and shift the farmers. The problem here is that if the land is of decent enough quality it is already being used by others. So if at all such a transfer has to be done it would need to first be accompanied by comprehensive land development and irrigation programme of this land.

The third would be to help the farmer pick up other occupations. That is, training and skill development programmes. Already occupational diversification is happening spontaneously, albeit slowly. Data shows that within a farmer household many are involved in non-agriculture activities. That is, already many households have ensured that incomes are not dependent on their agriculture land only. One household member may migrate, another might work in other non-agri occupations. Many farmers also have subsidiary occupations not related to agriculture. Over a period of time this window would grow by itself and eventually overwhelm the forces that require the farmer to retain his land. And in areas closer to the cities such forces tend to be stronger.

If growth were to be at a slower pace as it was when other high population density societies developed, enough time would be present for farmer households to shift occupations. But with double-digit growth that window is smaller. A do-nothing attitude therefore would lead to a situation where eventually agriculture land would get converted, but would be interspersed with law and order instability in rural and semi-urban areas. And the faster this conversion, the greater the farmer insecurity, and resultant instability.

Needless to say, the possible solutions outlined above would not be easy to implement. They also need to be comprehensive in nature. Some farmers might be adequately motivated by increased compensation, others might prefer to utilise occupational training options, still others may prefer to shift, and all may prefer a combination of all. But these mechanisms need to be put in place not because of our fear of law and order instability, but because inclusive growth requires us to appreciate and address the insecurities of all.

The writer heads Indicus Analytics, an economics research firm