How serious is Delhi about acquiring land for industry?
THE suicide by an Indian farmer at an opposition rally to protest the ordinance to change the Land Acquisition Act 2013 has put the Narendra Modi-led government in a tighter spot than it was in.
The directive, opposed by the entire opposition in both houses of parliament, sought to change a law passed in December 2013 that for the first time gave landholders a say in the terms under which their land could be acquired for industrial or infrastructural requirements.
The 2013 law, called "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act", had replaced the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, an obsolete colonial law that gave unbridled powers to the government to take over private land, including farmland. Enacted after decades of agitation for a fair law and several years of debate in parliament and the media, the 2013 law was backed by a consensus within all parties including the BJP.
The present government, when moving the ordinance late last year, maintained that it was necessary to get land for industrial development and to get infrastructural projects going. It said that unless it made the crucial amendments to the 2013 Act, India's economy could not deliver on its projected high growth. In particular, the government wanted to remove the consent clauses - where public-private partnerships would need 70 per cent of landholders to agree to the sale, and 80 per cent of landholders would have to agree for a private project.
Besides this, another crucial part of the 2013 Act - a "social impact assessment" that would study the effect of land acquisition on local communities - has been dropped.
Mr Modi and some BJP leaders claim that getting consent and conducting a social impact assessment would delay projects by several years, making them unviable. Jairam Ramesh, rural development minister in the previous UPA administration, does not think a social impact assessment would take more than six months. The consent of farmers who stand to lose their land would ensure them a fair price and industry is more likely to prosper if it has the backing rather than the opposition of those living in the neighbourhood.
The opposition has made it seem like a fight between the rice industrialists - the "suited and booted" - and the poor farmers, the majority of the population. Their case sounds more convincing in this time of agricultural distress when much of the wheat crops in the country were destroyed by unseasonal heavy rains in March. The agricultural sector is suffering from the effects of a poor monsoon last year, and the distress of farmers is reflected in the continuing suicides.
There are suspicions that the ordinance is a prelude to a massive land grab by people close to Mr Modi. In particular, a 1,400 km long, 100 km wide Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor would offer rich pickings. In another instance in Gujarat, the government has acquired for Gautam Adani, known to be close to Mr Modi, around 12,140 hectares of land for a very low price along a 70 km long coastal belt for a "special economic zone" (SEZ). Most of this was empty land when I was there a year ago.
Reports and documents show that about 30 to 50 per cent of land acquired by state governments through their industrial development corporations lie unused. Moreover, a study by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in 2013 showed that less than half of the 600 sq km acquired for SEZs had been put to use. In the report, the CAG maintains: "The acquisition of land from the public by the government is proving to be a major transfer of wealth from the rural populace to the corporate world."
The odd thing is that if the land were seriously needed for industry and infrastructure, the government's case would be strengthened if it were to specify just how much land it would need for which particular industry and how much employment it would generate. Instead of loud protestations about creating jobs, a more useful approach would be to specify just how much industry would be created, giving employment to so many people, and generating skills and income in rural India.
Furthermore, if it were serious about reaching a negotiated settlement with the opposition, it could bargain over the percentage of landholders whose consent would be required, or the time within which the consent should be obtained.
The 2013 Act came into force only in 2014 and hasn't had time to prove its worth. It needs to be given time to see what its faults and limitations are before amending it. Yet, so far not a single case of industry or infrastructure being hampered has come to light. Neither has the government initiated a single innovation on how those who lose their land can better their lives.
It becomes difficult to escape the inference that this politically suicidal ordinance is being brought only to benefit some rich industrial friends. Even the government's allies are against the ordinance, and so is the RSS, the BJP's parent body, and its labour and farm unions. It could lead to a financial scandal bigger than any before.
The prime minister is also losing his cool. Reacting to the opposition onslaught, Mr Modi has called them liars, declaring that lies were being spread about the Bill by "perverted minds".
