Land acquisition bill has been held up for Corporate interest!
Land acquisition bill has been held up, not because of public hearing or mass movement, not even for the political compulsion to appease Mamata Banerjee. but because of opposition from several ministers who felt it would stall “urbanisation and industrialisation”!
Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time: Eight Hundred Ninety Eight
Palash Biswas
Mobile: 919903717833
Skype ID: palash.biswas44
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Controversial Bill on land acquisition and the compensation and rehabilitation of those whose land is sought to be acquired ran into opposition in the Cabinet on Tuesday, resulting in referral to a Group of Ministers (GoM). While even the British restricted acquisition to government projects termed as “public purpose”, our elected governments amended the Act of 1894 to legitimise acquisition for private companies and public-private partnership projects.The Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill (LARR) 2012 has been referred to empowered group of ministers not just because of public hearing , or mass movement, not even for the political compulsion to appease Mamata Banerjee.,but it happened because ministers are much concerned to defend the corporate interest!The Telegraph Kolkata published a story to expose the government`s priority at the cost of the people of India. The daily reports that the land acquisition bill has been held up, not because of the familiar reasons but because of opposition from several ministers who felt it would stall “urbanisation and industrialisation”.The corporate lobbying tells us, we the people who in fact govern India amidst the coalgate standoff still continued and one after one scam inflict the balck money hegemony ruling India.Differences within the Union cabinet have nixed the plans of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) to fast-track a new legislation for land acquisition and compensation, widely seen as a key measure to spur investment in the economy, this is the gist.Mamata Banerjee may vehemently oppose the move to allow FDI in multi-brand retail or the tabling of the forward trading bill, but her party won't take the dissent so far as to rock the UPA boat.But Mamata`s political identity depends on the fate of the Bill as the Supreme Court on Friday sought response of Tata Motors Ltd on a special leave petition filed by the West Bengal government challenging the quashing of the Singur land acquisition Act by the state high court. bench of justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad, however, said that the Calcutta high court’s interim order which had stated that the state need not part with the land for two months to allow it file its appeal would continue.The West Bengal government had moved the apex court against the high court order, which had struck down the Singur land acquisition Act that allowed the state government to reclaim 400 acres of land given to Tata Motors. In its appeal, filed through advocate Abhijit Sen Gupta, the state government had said the high court has erred in quashing the Act. As Parliament has been continuously stalled by BJP demanding Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s resignation over alleged irregularities in coal block allocation, key bills on internal security, farmers, price rise and economic slowdown continue to remain pending.
Chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who has just returned from Delhi after attending a UPA co-ordination committee meeting, has expressed doubt over the tenure of the UPA government at the Centre.
"I don't know how long the Centre will stay and when it will cease to exist. We are trying to ensure that it stays," she said at the first political convention of Trinamool Yuva. She believes that Trinamool will emerge as a party worth reckoning in the national political scenario.
Despite Mamata's pledge to support the UPA government, it is not willing to give any respite to the Manmohan Singh government in its opposition to FDI in retail and the Pension Bill. Trinamool parliamentary party leader Sudip Bandyopadhyay described these bills as "controversial" and said retail traders were worried over the entry of FDI in retail.
Her partymen heaped praise on her saying that her Singur and Nandigram agitations were "the biggest democratic movements in India". "Now the country needs you," a leader said, projecting her as the future prime minister.
The amended land acquisition bill could run into rough weather with the ruling UPA constituent, Trinamool Congress, opposing the idea of the state acquiring land for private companies and PPP projects.
"There has been no change in our position. We object to the state being involved in acquiring land, and forcible evacuation of people. We maintain that the price of land should be determined through negotiations between the purchaser and sellers, and the government should not play intermediary," said leader of the Trinamool Congress in the Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandopadhyay.
The rural development ministry, which is piloting the bill, has said that the government can't withdraw from acquiring land for PPP projects or private companies when it was for public purpose. The ministry has tightened the definition of public purpose. The bill proposes the government's involvement in land acquisition only when there are PPP and private companies, involved in "production of public goods or the provision of public services for physical infrastructure, social infrastructure and human development projects, including those involved in production of intermediate goods and services." The ownership of land acquired for PPP projects will rest with the government. However, even this is not acceptable to the Trinamool Congress.
The rural development ministry maintains that the UPA ally should have no cause for worry. It argues that state governments are free not to be involved in acquiring land for private companies. An official close to the developments explained that the proposed legislation applies only to acquisitions initiated under the provisions of the Act, and private purchase over and above the threshold determined by the state government
Few of the bills, piling up because of the impasse include Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organisations Bill, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, and the Chemical Weapons (Amendment) Bill.
Most of these Bills were introduced in 2011 and 2010.
The Congress and BJP have been blaming each other for piling up of the proposed legislations.
The proposed land acquisition bill will be introduced in the Lok Sabha after incorporating the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development, the Rajya Sabha was informed.
"Based on the recommendations of the Committee or otherwise, the Department of Land Resources proposes to introduce official amendments to the Bill in the Lok Sabha," Minister of State for Rural Development Sisir Kumar Adhikari told Rajya Sabha in a written reply.Adhikari informed the House as per a clause of the Bill, when any land "acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of 10 years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall return to the Land Bank of appropriate government by reversion".
The Hindu reported:Despite the revisions, the Bill has come in for vociferous objections from two sides. Provisions such as mandatory consent by 80 per cent of landowners, a social impact assessment of projects, and the need for resettlement rather than mere cash compensation have raised the ire of business lobbies, who feel that industrial and infrastructure projects will be stalled. According to government sources, Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath raised several of these issues at the Cabinet meeting.
However, farmers’ rights groups and civil society activists speaking on behalf of landless labourers and others dependent on the land for their livelihood have said the provisions are not stringent enough. They oppose the idea of the government acquiring land for private and PPP projects, even if they are in public interest.
Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh recently admitted that economic worries have forced him to make changes to the Bill in order to dispel the impression that it was pro-farmer and anti-industry. For instance, he had changed his mind on retrospectively applying the law.
“Had the economy been growing at nine per cent per year, I may not have changed my view,” he said. “But the current economic circumstances dictate the need to make the Bill perceptively more investor-friendly.”
(http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3831891.ece)
I could not go to Delhi to join the protest rally against the bill, but activists like Roma and NAPM bulletins kept me quite updated.NAPM accuses of Corporate lobbying behind policy making and legislation. It is justified the mainstream media now.The Union cabinet held back clearance to the amended bill a year after approving the original and more stringent version.On the Prime Minister’s advice, the bill was referred to a group of ministers that may be set up after Manmohan Singh returns from the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Iran.Mind you,other than Ajit Singh, no ally — the usual suspect — found fault with the amended bill, which lays down guidelines for land acquisition for public purposes, including such projects by private industry, and for compensation and rehabilitation.
Medha Patkar, Vimal Bhai, Bhupinder Singh Rawat, Rajendra Ravi and Madhuresh Kumar issued a press statement on land acquisition that the governemnet should protect the interest of the farmers, workers and lanless .Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has decided to refer the Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill (LARR) 2012 to the Group of Ministers, as Cabinet could not agree on the provisions of the Bill as it stands. It is unfortunate. Going by the news reports Prime Minister is paying attention to the objections raised by the Ministry of Commerce, Civil Aviation, Urban Development, Highways and others, while the voices of farmers organisations, social movements and concerns raised by the Ministries of Social Justice and Empowerment, Tribal Affairs, Housing and Urban Development are being ignored. This shows clearly the priorities of the UPA government and exposes the claims of the Ministers sitting in the Cabinet and claiming to represent interests of farmers, workers and landless. Their constituency needs good roads to their villages, schools and hospitals and not airports and 6 - 8 lane highways like Yamuna Expressway which are profit making ventures for corporates directly or through public-private joint ventures.
The referring of the Bill to the Group of Ministers is a clear indication of the pressure from the corporate houses who want to continue their profit making ventures. All party Parliamentary Standing Committee has given its recommendations which should be used to improve the Bill rather than dilute it further. It should act as the guidelines to the UPA government to bring the revised Bill sooner in the Parliament rather than continue the forcible land acquisitions for the private corporations. NAPM demands that the new GoM must not be headed by anti-farmer, pro-corporate minister, it has to be either tribal affairs, rural development or social justice empowerment minister.
Ignoring the Committee recommendations, the Bill has widened the definitions of 'Public Purpose', beyond acceptable limits which even British never did, by creating a category of ‘public interest’ projects, fraudulently. Forcibly acquiring land and everything attached to land (crores of rupees worth minerals or invaluable ground water) from farmers for the profit – making millionaires is the grand design of the Indian rulers in collusion with the corporations.
Liz Mathew makes it quite clear in the Live mint. he writes:
The new land acquisition Bill was among the key legislative reforms the government had earlier promised to embark on after the presidential elections. That plan hasn’t worked, though, and the government has spent most of the monsoon session fighting the opposition’s accusations on corruption following a damning indictment of the government’s coal allotments by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
“A lot of ministries have given their suggestions. They were not adequately heard and hence the matter has been referred to GoM,” said a cabinet minister, who did not want to be identified.
According to another top official, the ministerial group will be constituted immediately after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returns from his four-day trip to Tehran, where he is attending a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. “The Bill is expected to be passed in the winter session,” added this person, who also did not want to be identified.
In the Bill, renamed as the Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, 2011, the rural development ministry has rejected a parliamentary committee’s suggestion that the government should not acquire land for public-private-partnership projects, but had accepted that land procured for special economic zones (SEZs) and some defence projects cannot be exempted from the purview of a land acquisition law.
The official added that five ministers, mainly those holding portfolios dealing with infrastructure, had expressed their apprehensions that the legislation would lead to unreasonable delays in the process of acquisition of land and delay projects. According to another person familiar with the developments, urban development minister Kamal Nath, who opposed the current form of the Bill, spoke for 10 minutes, during which he said some provisions in the Bill would stall urbanization and industrialization. This person, too, did not want to be identified.
http://www.livemint.com/2012/08/28152751/Consensus-eludes-UPA-on-land-B.html
The Hindu edit clearly points out that the Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 seems to be driven by a desire to make acquisition for industrialisation and urbanisation easier.
Just read:
One started reading the new Draft National Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 with expectations of a great improvement over the 2007 Bills. There are indeed some very good features in the new Bill but, on the whole, one must regretfully report disappointment. Let us see how the Bill deals with some of the key issues involved.
(i) Acquisition of agricultural land: The Bill rules out the acquisition, not of all irrigated agricultural land, but of multi-cropped irrigated agricultural land. That limited exclusion seems rather half-hearted.
(ii) Avoiding or minimising displacement: A serious concern about the trauma of displacement does not seem to be the driving force behind the Bill. The principles of ‘no forced displacement' and ‘free, informed prior consent' are not mentioned. (Incidentally, the condition of consent by 80 per cent of the land-owners applies only to land-acquisition by the government for companies including PPP cases, and not to governmental acquisition for itself. It appears that there has been no dilution at all of ‘eminent domain'.) There are indeed a number of good provisions relating to displacement (SIA, review of SIA by an Expert Committee, consideration of ‘less displacing alternative', public hearing, etc.), but the final decision is that of the bureaucracy. If a statutory clearance is needed for cutting a tree or for causing an environmental impact, should it not be required for displacing people? If the National Rehabilitation Commission mentioned in the 2007 Bill had been retained, a statutory displacement clearance by it could have been prescribed, but the present Bill envisages no such Commission.
(iii) Inadequacy of compensation: The present Bill increases the compensation amount significantly. This is welcome. Whether the earlier problems of delays and corruption in the payment process will disappear or diminish, remains to be seen.
(iv) The acquisition of land by the state for private companies: A view, held by many for a long time, is that there is no reason why the state should use its sovereign power to acquire land for private companies which are primarily in business for profit and not for conferring benefits on the public.
The 2007 Bills had sought to reduce the extent of land acquisition by the state for a company to 30 per cent , if the company purchases 70 per cent of the land needed by negotiation. The present Bill does away with the 70:30 formula, but provides for ‘partial' acquisition by the state for a company if a company so requests. Presumably ‘partial' acquisition could go up to near-full acquisition by the state. This seems a retrograde step.
(v) Private purchase: As for private negotiation, the Minister himself refers in his Foreword to the “asymmetry of power (and information) between those wanting to acquire the land and those whose lands are being acquired”, but the Bill provides no mechanism to reduce that asymmetry. It doubtless extends the R&R provisions to private negotiated purchases of land but provides no safeguard against unfair negotiation. (Even the extension of the R&R provisions to negotiated purchases — the legality of which may be challenged — applies only where a company buys 100 acres or more, and that threshold can be easily side-stepped in ways that need not be spelt out here.) One wishes that the Minister had strengthened the hands of the weaker party in the negotiation by providing — this is merely an illustration — that the compensation that the land-owners would have got under this Bill if the land had been acquired by the government (to be determined by the collector) would be the floor below which the price negotiated by the company with the land-owners shall not fall.
(vi) Change of land use: That safeguard might ensure a fair price, but there is also the question of transfer of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and the implications for food security. One possibility might be to say that all acquisition of land, including acquisitions for companies, must be only by the state; but that does not seem desirable and, in any case, it is not really an answer to the problem of land-transfer away from agriculture. Another possibility is that private purchases of agricultural land should be subject to state regulation from the point of view of land-use. That might be open to the objection of undue interference with a landowner's right to sell his land. On the whole, the answer to the question of minimising transfers of agricultural land to non-agricultural use might lie in policies supportive of agriculture rather than in control or regulation over land transactions.
(vii) Definition of ‘public purpose': An issue that has persistently figured in the debate during the last decade or two is the need to narrow the definition of ‘public purpose' and limit it to a few strictly governmental purposes (schools, dispensaries, etc). The present Bill moves in exactly the opposite direction. It defines ‘public purpose' very broadly and leaves it to the bureaucracy to decide each case. Is it right to assume that any industry ipso facto serves a public purpose warranting the alienation of agricultural land? For instance, in the Singur episode land acquisition was for ‘industry', i.e., Tatas' small car factory; was that ‘public purpose'? It can be so declared under the present Bill. Again, ‘infrastructure' includes ‘tourism', which would permit the acquisition of land for building hotels. It seems desirable to define ‘public purpose' somewhat more stringently.
(viii) Coverage of ‘project-affected persons': The Bill refers to loss of primary livelihoods but links it to the acquisition of land. The term ‘livelihoods' is illustrated by a reference to the gathering of forest produce, hunting, fishing, etc; there is no reference to sellers of goods and services to the people in the project area, who will lose their livelihoods when the people whom they serve move away to resettlement areas. It is not clear whether they will be regarded as project-affected persons.
(ix) Social Impact Assessment: On Social Impact Assessment the present Bill is an improvement on the 2007 Bill, but the idea of SIA still falls short: it does not cover the disappearance of a whole way of life; the dispersal of close-knit communities; the loss of a centuries-old relationship with nature; the loss of roots; and so on. It is good that the SIA will be reviewed by an independent multi-disciplinary expert body, but it should first be prepared by a similar body. The Bill leaves the SIA to be prepared by the “appropriate government.”
(x) Rehabilitation package: The rehabilitation package is distinctly inferior to the packages already established in certain projects. The principle of ‘land for land' has been abandoned. It figures only in the case of irrigation projects, and there the Bill envisages one acre per family instead of two acres as in the Sardar Sarovar Project. There are two points here. First, it is not clear why the Bill specifies irrigation projects; hydroelectric projects and flood control also have the same impacts as irrigation projects, and in any case many projects are ‘multi-purpose' projects. Secondly, compensation and rehabilitation should have reference not to the nature of the project but to the nature of the impact. Whatever be the project, if an agricultural community is uprooted from its land and homestead, it has to be enabled to practise agriculture elsewhere, and not expected to become carpenters or weavers or traders.
(xi) Other matters: A number of officials and institutions are specified in the Bill, such as the Collector, Administrator of R&R, Commissioner of R&R, etc., but it is only in the R&R Committee that there is a significant non-official presence. The National Monitoring Committee is not ‘participatory'; apart from officials, it includes only a few experts. As indicated earlier, the idea of a National Rehabilitation Commission has been abandoned.
Incidentally, it is not clear why displacement by natural calamities should be brought within the purview of this Bill. There is a vital difference between unavoidable displacement caused by nature and deliberate displacement caused by human decisions.
Summing up, the Bill seems to be essentially driven by a desire to make land acquisition for industrialisation and urbanisation easier. It is clear that the Bill, which does contain many good features, nevertheless requires substantial improvement.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2366476.ece
The Bill has gone through certain improvements based on suggestions received from various social movements and recommendations of the Standing Committee, yet it falls short of what is required to protect natural and human resource-based communities and uphold truly democratic development planning. This is the view of the masses, not the corporates. On which side are the government and political parties? They can’t sit on the fence when farms are burning !
Last week, the Cabinet deferred discussion on the newly renamed Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, 2012, which was scheduled to be introduced in Parliament in the monsoon session. On Tuesday, several Ministers — mostly from infrastructure ministries — brought up concerns about provisions in the Bill, resulting in further delay as the matter will now be decided by a GoM.
The original Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011, was introduced in Parliament last September and referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee. The panel’s report was submitted in May this year, following which the Rural Development Ministry re-wrote the Bill to incorporate many of its recommendations.
After the original bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha last September, it was sent to a standing committee several of whose recommendations have been included in the amended version, the “Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill”.
The standing committee’s suggestion that the government should not get involved in land acquisition for private industry was, however, rejected by the rural development ministry, which drew up the draft.
The original bill said the government would acquire land for public-private partnership (PPP) projects and private companies only with the consent of 80 per cent of the project-affected people, a category that includes the landowners as well as those dependent on the land for their livelihood. The revised bill relaxes this provision, saying consent is needed from 80 per cent of the landowners only.
A few thousand representatives of various people’s movements from across the country gathered at Jantar Mantar in the national capital. They are Dalits, Adiviasis, sections of unprotected working class including farmers and fish-workers but they all form one ‘biradari’ of those who live off land, water, forest. They are the ones who produce, distribute, build, operate, clean, sell, drive and do all that enable society to survive, proceed and progress. But the tragedy is that they have to battle for their own survival. And that is what they do, through non-violent means, against a state that plots to evict them, rob them of their meagre resources, transfer the capital in their hands to corporates in the name of development and then compel them to beg for rehabilitation. Asserting their right to resources and to make their own plans to develop those resources, they are also questioning a development model that is undemocratic, inequitable and unjust.
In Medha`s words:They are at Jantar Mantar to agitate against the upcoming ‘Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill’. They want to convey the message that it is time to review and discard the British legacy of forcible acquisition on the basis of ‘eminent domain’ of the state and stress the eminent domain of the people who are both at the root of democracy as well as its top. When money and labour, two of the three capital resources for any ‘development’ project (a dam, industry, infrastructure etc.) can’t be taken by force, how can any statutory agency forcibly acquire the third resource — land?
The Telegraph reports:“The original bill had more stringent conditions. It is surprising that the cabinet, which approved the original bill, is saying the amended bill is anti-industrialisation and anti-urbanisation,” National Advisory Council member N.C. Saxena said.
Introducing the bill last year, rural development minister Jairam Ramesh had said: “The bill aims to ensure a humane, participatory (and) informed consultative and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructure facilities and urbanisation with least disturbance to owners of land and other affected families.”
Saxena said Ramesh’s statement, which would have reflected the government’s view at the time, was clearly that the bill would “facilitate industrialisation and urbanisation”.
Among those who opposed the draft bill today was urban development minister Kamal Nath, who wanted deletion of the requirement for a social impact assessment by the district administration in consultation with the gram sabha. (See chart)
The amended bill says compensation should be twice the market rate in urban areas and two to four times the market rate in rural areas depending on the project’s distance from the nearest urban area.
In one way, though, the amended bill is “tougher” than the original, which said the proposed law would not apply to land acquisition under a set of 16 central laws. These included the Special Economic Zones Act, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, Atomic Energy Act, Electricity Act, Railways Act, Works of Defence Act and Cantonment Act.
Following the standing committee’s advice against exempting any of these 16 acts from the land bill’s provisions, the revised bill says the land acquisition law will apply to the SEZ Act, Works of Defence Act and Cantonment Act.
For the other 13 laws, land acquisition will be conducted as before but the compensation and the rehabilitation-and-resettlement benefits will be the same as those under the land acquisition bill.
Commerce minister Anand Sharma has opposed bringing SEZs under the land acquisition bill.
(http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120829/jsp/frontpage/story_15910787.jsp#.UD4u16DRnKQ)
While even the British restricted acquisition to government projects termed as “public purpose”, our elected governments amended the Act of 1894 to legitimise acquisition for private companies and public-private partnership projects. Prime rural and urban land is being acquired, while lakhs of hectares of barren waste land or acquired but unused land is being ignored. The policy has created havoc. In urban areas, basti after basti is evicted in the name of ‘redevelopment’, ensuring huge profits for builders and developers. The results are obvious. With more than 18 lakh hectares of agricultural land directed to non-agricultural purpose in 10 years, and the urban land ceiling acts in States having been repealed, houses are beyond the reach of the middle class. Between 25 and 60 per cent of urban poor live in slums or are homeless.
The recent report of the all-party committee on the Bill appreciates the issues and reservations raised by many of us: no forcible acquisition for private or PPP projects; no acquisition of agricultural land — one crop or multiple crop; and bringing under the purview of this Act, all Central Acts used for land acquisition in sector such as mining, highways, railways, ports etc. It also recognises the role of the Gram Sabha and Basti Sabha, in deciding public purpose to planning the project, deciding the R&R and then monitoring it. This is nothing new, but reiterates the framework provided through Article 243 (73rd and 74th Amendment) of the Constitution, incorporated in 1992-93. If the land allotted to any industry/project is not used for five years, it can go back to the landowner, the report recommends.
Unfortunately, the Ministry of Rural Development is not agreeable to many of these reasonable proposals. Only multiple-crop land can be excluded, it says. How is this possible if, for instance, a single-crop plot is sandwiched between two multiple crop ones? Today’s non-irrigated land can be tomorrow’s irrigated. Rural development should have agriculturists as the prime beneficiaries, not the corporates. The latter are pushing state acquisition through the Ministry of Rural Development for their own benefit. Why should the MoRD or the government bow before them? The answer lies in the politician-bureaucrat-corporate nexus.
But the movements can’t submit to this. They are demanding that the government not act as the property dealer for private corporations. Public purpose itself is defined by the Ministry of Rural Development in a manner worse than in the British Act.
The weakest part endorsed by both the committee and the MoRD is, however, rehabilitation. The number of displaced/affected people since Independence is anywhere between eight and 12 crore (the number is never final as many categories are left out, such as canal-affected persons in dam constructions, and where the government has no comprehensive record). Up to 86 per cent of this number has been left pauper for generations. Whether it is Bhakra Nangal or Narmada, coastal communities of fish-workers, slum dwellers or victims of industrial development, each State has lakhs of families waiting to be rehabilitated, and still in struggle mode.
The only progressive rehabilitation policy in Sardar Sarovar dam-Narmada Project could be brought about only through a continuous struggle over the past 27 years by the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Why can’t the same provisions become part of the new Act, people ask. The answer is: no political will. Only cash — four to six times the market value, as in the Haryana, Gurgaon or U.P. models — is not rehabilitation. ‘Cash’ was offered by the British as well. It has failed to ensure livelihood. Today’s market can be very deceptive and elusive for simple farmers or labourers. Why can’t a government ensure an alternative source of livelihood using the same cash instead of destroying and dividing integrated, non-cash-based communities?
In short, the opportunity to democratise and decentralise planning to minimise diversion of land and destruction of agriculture, and to stop uprooting our own people must be viewed with all seriousness. People in every State are demanding an end to these policies. If this cry is not responded to by changing the Bill to incorporate the committee’s recommendations and calling for wider consultations for true land reforms, serious conflict can only intensify, for which the present rulers will be forced to pay a heavy price in 2014.
Medha Patkar responds
The response to my article by Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Rural Development, and his colleagues is a welcome move towards a public debate which we have suggested, time and again, should be held in every State with all people’s organisations. I would like to briefly reply to some points in the Minister’s response:
His argument that land is finite cannot be used to justify forcible acquisition. The Bill proposed by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is clinging on to a colonial legacy. The consent of the gram sabhas, the community and people should be the precondition before any natural resource, land or mineral, is acquired. Exceptions can be made in post-calamity, post-riot situations or in acquisitions of land holdings that are above the ceiling. Can a decentralised Development Planning Act serve the purpose? Let the community put forth its vision and plan as per Article 243 of the Constitution; what is completely unacceptable is for the government to acquire land for private and PPP projects.
Saving agricultural land for food security and for the livelihood of crores in this country is a must for our survival. The All Party Parliamentary Standing Committee itself has realised this. Not 18 lakh, but 180 lakh hectares (typographical error in the original article) was diverted in a decade for non-agricultural purposes. We are not against, but for true industrialisation. The trend of industries grabbing land and public resource, next to expensive public infrastructure and using it for recreation goes against all norms of public purpose.
It must be reversed. The States too must be restrained in the public interest from undertaking forcible acquisition.
“Public Purpose,” as defined in the Bill is widened beyond acceptable limits through a new fraudulent category of “public interest” projects. Even the British never did this.
The rehabilitation provided by the Bill is certainly not fair, nor adequate for an alternative livelihood. Cash being no option, land for land as provided in the 2007 policy (with “may” as a prefix) is also not in the amended bill. How can the government not have enough land for rehabilitation, when it can and does purchase thousands of acres of land for private corporations and entities? Also, why is no one talking about rehabilitation of those already displaced? Make the law applicable with retrospective effect and include all other Acts with the “acquisition” clause under the new Act.
The present Bill has gone through certain improvements based on our critique and the recommendations of the Standing Committee, yet it falls far short of what is required to protect natural and human resource-based communities and uphold truly democratic development planning. This is the view of the masses, not the corporates. On which side are the government and political parties? They can’t sit on the fence when farms are burning.
(Medha Patkar is a social activist and founder of Narmada Bachao Andolan and National Alliance of People’s Movements.)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3832612.ece
Highlights of the Bill
The Bill provides for land acquisition as well as rehabilitation and resettlement. It replaces the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The process for land acquisition involves a Social Impact Assessment survey, preliminary notification stating the intent for acquisition, a declaration of acquisition, and compensation to be given by a certain time. All acquisitions require rehabilitation and resettlement to be provided to the people affected by the acquisition.
Compensation for the owners of the acquired land shall be four times the market value in case of rural areas and twice in case of urban areas.
In case of acquisition of land for use by private companies or public private partnerships, consent of 80 per cent of the displaced people will be required. Purchase of large pieces of land by private companies will require provision of rehabilitation and resettlement.
The provisions of this Bill shall not apply to acquisitions under 16 existing legislations including the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the Railways Act, 1989, etc.
Key Issues and Analysis
It is not clear whether Parliament has jurisdiction to impose rehabilitation and resettlement requirements on private purchase of agricultural land.
The requirement of a Social Impact Assessment for every acquisition without a minimum thresholdmay delay the implementation of certain government programmes.
Projects involving land acquisition and undertaken by private companies or public private partnerships require the consent of 80 per cent of the people affected. However, no such consent is required in case of PSUs.
The market value is based on recent reported transactions. This value is doubled in rural areas to arrive at the compensation amount. This method may not lead to an accurate adjustment for the possible underreporting of prices in land transactions.
Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time: Eight Hundred Ninety Eight
Palash Biswas
Mobile: 919903717833
Skype ID: palash.biswas44
Email: palashbiswaskl@gmail.com
Controversial Bill on land acquisition and the compensation and rehabilitation of those whose land is sought to be acquired ran into opposition in the Cabinet on Tuesday, resulting in referral to a Group of Ministers (GoM). While even the British restricted acquisition to government projects termed as “public purpose”, our elected governments amended the Act of 1894 to legitimise acquisition for private companies and public-private partnership projects.The Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill (LARR) 2012 has been referred to empowered group of ministers not just because of public hearing , or mass movement, not even for the political compulsion to appease Mamata Banerjee.,but it happened because ministers are much concerned to defend the corporate interest!The Telegraph Kolkata published a story to expose the government`s priority at the cost of the people of India. The daily reports that the land acquisition bill has been held up, not because of the familiar reasons but because of opposition from several ministers who felt it would stall “urbanisation and industrialisation”.The corporate lobbying tells us, we the people who in fact govern India amidst the coalgate standoff still continued and one after one scam inflict the balck money hegemony ruling India.Differences within the Union cabinet have nixed the plans of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) to fast-track a new legislation for land acquisition and compensation, widely seen as a key measure to spur investment in the economy, this is the gist.Mamata Banerjee may vehemently oppose the move to allow FDI in multi-brand retail or the tabling of the forward trading bill, but her party won't take the dissent so far as to rock the UPA boat.But Mamata`s political identity depends on the fate of the Bill as the Supreme Court on Friday sought response of Tata Motors Ltd on a special leave petition filed by the West Bengal government challenging the quashing of the Singur land acquisition Act by the state high court. bench of justices H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad, however, said that the Calcutta high court’s interim order which had stated that the state need not part with the land for two months to allow it file its appeal would continue.The West Bengal government had moved the apex court against the high court order, which had struck down the Singur land acquisition Act that allowed the state government to reclaim 400 acres of land given to Tata Motors. In its appeal, filed through advocate Abhijit Sen Gupta, the state government had said the high court has erred in quashing the Act. As Parliament has been continuously stalled by BJP demanding Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s resignation over alleged irregularities in coal block allocation, key bills on internal security, farmers, price rise and economic slowdown continue to remain pending.
Chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who has just returned from Delhi after attending a UPA co-ordination committee meeting, has expressed doubt over the tenure of the UPA government at the Centre.
"I don't know how long the Centre will stay and when it will cease to exist. We are trying to ensure that it stays," she said at the first political convention of Trinamool Yuva. She believes that Trinamool will emerge as a party worth reckoning in the national political scenario.
Despite Mamata's pledge to support the UPA government, it is not willing to give any respite to the Manmohan Singh government in its opposition to FDI in retail and the Pension Bill. Trinamool parliamentary party leader Sudip Bandyopadhyay described these bills as "controversial" and said retail traders were worried over the entry of FDI in retail.
Her partymen heaped praise on her saying that her Singur and Nandigram agitations were "the biggest democratic movements in India". "Now the country needs you," a leader said, projecting her as the future prime minister.
The amended land acquisition bill could run into rough weather with the ruling UPA constituent, Trinamool Congress, opposing the idea of the state acquiring land for private companies and PPP projects.
"There has been no change in our position. We object to the state being involved in acquiring land, and forcible evacuation of people. We maintain that the price of land should be determined through negotiations between the purchaser and sellers, and the government should not play intermediary," said leader of the Trinamool Congress in the Lok Sabha, Sudip Bandopadhyay.
The rural development ministry, which is piloting the bill, has said that the government can't withdraw from acquiring land for PPP projects or private companies when it was for public purpose. The ministry has tightened the definition of public purpose. The bill proposes the government's involvement in land acquisition only when there are PPP and private companies, involved in "production of public goods or the provision of public services for physical infrastructure, social infrastructure and human development projects, including those involved in production of intermediate goods and services." The ownership of land acquired for PPP projects will rest with the government. However, even this is not acceptable to the Trinamool Congress.
The rural development ministry maintains that the UPA ally should have no cause for worry. It argues that state governments are free not to be involved in acquiring land for private companies. An official close to the developments explained that the proposed legislation applies only to acquisitions initiated under the provisions of the Act, and private purchase over and above the threshold determined by the state government
Few of the bills, piling up because of the impasse include Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organisations Bill, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, and the Chemical Weapons (Amendment) Bill.
Most of these Bills were introduced in 2011 and 2010.
The Congress and BJP have been blaming each other for piling up of the proposed legislations.
The proposed land acquisition bill will be introduced in the Lok Sabha after incorporating the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development, the Rajya Sabha was informed.
"Based on the recommendations of the Committee or otherwise, the Department of Land Resources proposes to introduce official amendments to the Bill in the Lok Sabha," Minister of State for Rural Development Sisir Kumar Adhikari told Rajya Sabha in a written reply.Adhikari informed the House as per a clause of the Bill, when any land "acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of 10 years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall return to the Land Bank of appropriate government by reversion".
The Hindu reported:Despite the revisions, the Bill has come in for vociferous objections from two sides. Provisions such as mandatory consent by 80 per cent of landowners, a social impact assessment of projects, and the need for resettlement rather than mere cash compensation have raised the ire of business lobbies, who feel that industrial and infrastructure projects will be stalled. According to government sources, Urban Development Minister Kamal Nath raised several of these issues at the Cabinet meeting.
However, farmers’ rights groups and civil society activists speaking on behalf of landless labourers and others dependent on the land for their livelihood have said the provisions are not stringent enough. They oppose the idea of the government acquiring land for private and PPP projects, even if they are in public interest.
Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh recently admitted that economic worries have forced him to make changes to the Bill in order to dispel the impression that it was pro-farmer and anti-industry. For instance, he had changed his mind on retrospectively applying the law.
“Had the economy been growing at nine per cent per year, I may not have changed my view,” he said. “But the current economic circumstances dictate the need to make the Bill perceptively more investor-friendly.”
(http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3831891.ece)
I could not go to Delhi to join the protest rally against the bill, but activists like Roma and NAPM bulletins kept me quite updated.NAPM accuses of Corporate lobbying behind policy making and legislation. It is justified the mainstream media now.The Union cabinet held back clearance to the amended bill a year after approving the original and more stringent version.On the Prime Minister’s advice, the bill was referred to a group of ministers that may be set up after Manmohan Singh returns from the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Iran.Mind you,other than Ajit Singh, no ally — the usual suspect — found fault with the amended bill, which lays down guidelines for land acquisition for public purposes, including such projects by private industry, and for compensation and rehabilitation.
Medha Patkar, Vimal Bhai, Bhupinder Singh Rawat, Rajendra Ravi and Madhuresh Kumar issued a press statement on land acquisition that the governemnet should protect the interest of the farmers, workers and lanless .Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has decided to refer the Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill (LARR) 2012 to the Group of Ministers, as Cabinet could not agree on the provisions of the Bill as it stands. It is unfortunate. Going by the news reports Prime Minister is paying attention to the objections raised by the Ministry of Commerce, Civil Aviation, Urban Development, Highways and others, while the voices of farmers organisations, social movements and concerns raised by the Ministries of Social Justice and Empowerment, Tribal Affairs, Housing and Urban Development are being ignored. This shows clearly the priorities of the UPA government and exposes the claims of the Ministers sitting in the Cabinet and claiming to represent interests of farmers, workers and landless. Their constituency needs good roads to their villages, schools and hospitals and not airports and 6 - 8 lane highways like Yamuna Expressway which are profit making ventures for corporates directly or through public-private joint ventures.
The referring of the Bill to the Group of Ministers is a clear indication of the pressure from the corporate houses who want to continue their profit making ventures. All party Parliamentary Standing Committee has given its recommendations which should be used to improve the Bill rather than dilute it further. It should act as the guidelines to the UPA government to bring the revised Bill sooner in the Parliament rather than continue the forcible land acquisitions for the private corporations. NAPM demands that the new GoM must not be headed by anti-farmer, pro-corporate minister, it has to be either tribal affairs, rural development or social justice empowerment minister.
Ignoring the Committee recommendations, the Bill has widened the definitions of 'Public Purpose', beyond acceptable limits which even British never did, by creating a category of ‘public interest’ projects, fraudulently. Forcibly acquiring land and everything attached to land (crores of rupees worth minerals or invaluable ground water) from farmers for the profit – making millionaires is the grand design of the Indian rulers in collusion with the corporations.
Liz Mathew makes it quite clear in the Live mint. he writes:
The new land acquisition Bill was among the key legislative reforms the government had earlier promised to embark on after the presidential elections. That plan hasn’t worked, though, and the government has spent most of the monsoon session fighting the opposition’s accusations on corruption following a damning indictment of the government’s coal allotments by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).
“A lot of ministries have given their suggestions. They were not adequately heard and hence the matter has been referred to GoM,” said a cabinet minister, who did not want to be identified.
According to another top official, the ministerial group will be constituted immediately after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh returns from his four-day trip to Tehran, where he is attending a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement. “The Bill is expected to be passed in the winter session,” added this person, who also did not want to be identified.
In the Bill, renamed as the Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, 2011, the rural development ministry has rejected a parliamentary committee’s suggestion that the government should not acquire land for public-private-partnership projects, but had accepted that land procured for special economic zones (SEZs) and some defence projects cannot be exempted from the purview of a land acquisition law.
The official added that five ministers, mainly those holding portfolios dealing with infrastructure, had expressed their apprehensions that the legislation would lead to unreasonable delays in the process of acquisition of land and delay projects. According to another person familiar with the developments, urban development minister Kamal Nath, who opposed the current form of the Bill, spoke for 10 minutes, during which he said some provisions in the Bill would stall urbanization and industrialization. This person, too, did not want to be identified.
http://www.livemint.com/2012/08/28152751/Consensus-eludes-UPA-on-land-B.html
The Hindu edit clearly points out that the Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 seems to be driven by a desire to make acquisition for industrialisation and urbanisation easier.
Just read:
One started reading the new Draft National Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 with expectations of a great improvement over the 2007 Bills. There are indeed some very good features in the new Bill but, on the whole, one must regretfully report disappointment. Let us see how the Bill deals with some of the key issues involved.
(i) Acquisition of agricultural land: The Bill rules out the acquisition, not of all irrigated agricultural land, but of multi-cropped irrigated agricultural land. That limited exclusion seems rather half-hearted.
(ii) Avoiding or minimising displacement: A serious concern about the trauma of displacement does not seem to be the driving force behind the Bill. The principles of ‘no forced displacement' and ‘free, informed prior consent' are not mentioned. (Incidentally, the condition of consent by 80 per cent of the land-owners applies only to land-acquisition by the government for companies including PPP cases, and not to governmental acquisition for itself. It appears that there has been no dilution at all of ‘eminent domain'.) There are indeed a number of good provisions relating to displacement (SIA, review of SIA by an Expert Committee, consideration of ‘less displacing alternative', public hearing, etc.), but the final decision is that of the bureaucracy. If a statutory clearance is needed for cutting a tree or for causing an environmental impact, should it not be required for displacing people? If the National Rehabilitation Commission mentioned in the 2007 Bill had been retained, a statutory displacement clearance by it could have been prescribed, but the present Bill envisages no such Commission.
(iii) Inadequacy of compensation: The present Bill increases the compensation amount significantly. This is welcome. Whether the earlier problems of delays and corruption in the payment process will disappear or diminish, remains to be seen.
(iv) The acquisition of land by the state for private companies: A view, held by many for a long time, is that there is no reason why the state should use its sovereign power to acquire land for private companies which are primarily in business for profit and not for conferring benefits on the public.
The 2007 Bills had sought to reduce the extent of land acquisition by the state for a company to 30 per cent , if the company purchases 70 per cent of the land needed by negotiation. The present Bill does away with the 70:30 formula, but provides for ‘partial' acquisition by the state for a company if a company so requests. Presumably ‘partial' acquisition could go up to near-full acquisition by the state. This seems a retrograde step.
(v) Private purchase: As for private negotiation, the Minister himself refers in his Foreword to the “asymmetry of power (and information) between those wanting to acquire the land and those whose lands are being acquired”, but the Bill provides no mechanism to reduce that asymmetry. It doubtless extends the R&R provisions to private negotiated purchases of land but provides no safeguard against unfair negotiation. (Even the extension of the R&R provisions to negotiated purchases — the legality of which may be challenged — applies only where a company buys 100 acres or more, and that threshold can be easily side-stepped in ways that need not be spelt out here.) One wishes that the Minister had strengthened the hands of the weaker party in the negotiation by providing — this is merely an illustration — that the compensation that the land-owners would have got under this Bill if the land had been acquired by the government (to be determined by the collector) would be the floor below which the price negotiated by the company with the land-owners shall not fall.
(vi) Change of land use: That safeguard might ensure a fair price, but there is also the question of transfer of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and the implications for food security. One possibility might be to say that all acquisition of land, including acquisitions for companies, must be only by the state; but that does not seem desirable and, in any case, it is not really an answer to the problem of land-transfer away from agriculture. Another possibility is that private purchases of agricultural land should be subject to state regulation from the point of view of land-use. That might be open to the objection of undue interference with a landowner's right to sell his land. On the whole, the answer to the question of minimising transfers of agricultural land to non-agricultural use might lie in policies supportive of agriculture rather than in control or regulation over land transactions.
(vii) Definition of ‘public purpose': An issue that has persistently figured in the debate during the last decade or two is the need to narrow the definition of ‘public purpose' and limit it to a few strictly governmental purposes (schools, dispensaries, etc). The present Bill moves in exactly the opposite direction. It defines ‘public purpose' very broadly and leaves it to the bureaucracy to decide each case. Is it right to assume that any industry ipso facto serves a public purpose warranting the alienation of agricultural land? For instance, in the Singur episode land acquisition was for ‘industry', i.e., Tatas' small car factory; was that ‘public purpose'? It can be so declared under the present Bill. Again, ‘infrastructure' includes ‘tourism', which would permit the acquisition of land for building hotels. It seems desirable to define ‘public purpose' somewhat more stringently.
(viii) Coverage of ‘project-affected persons': The Bill refers to loss of primary livelihoods but links it to the acquisition of land. The term ‘livelihoods' is illustrated by a reference to the gathering of forest produce, hunting, fishing, etc; there is no reference to sellers of goods and services to the people in the project area, who will lose their livelihoods when the people whom they serve move away to resettlement areas. It is not clear whether they will be regarded as project-affected persons.
(ix) Social Impact Assessment: On Social Impact Assessment the present Bill is an improvement on the 2007 Bill, but the idea of SIA still falls short: it does not cover the disappearance of a whole way of life; the dispersal of close-knit communities; the loss of a centuries-old relationship with nature; the loss of roots; and so on. It is good that the SIA will be reviewed by an independent multi-disciplinary expert body, but it should first be prepared by a similar body. The Bill leaves the SIA to be prepared by the “appropriate government.”
(x) Rehabilitation package: The rehabilitation package is distinctly inferior to the packages already established in certain projects. The principle of ‘land for land' has been abandoned. It figures only in the case of irrigation projects, and there the Bill envisages one acre per family instead of two acres as in the Sardar Sarovar Project. There are two points here. First, it is not clear why the Bill specifies irrigation projects; hydroelectric projects and flood control also have the same impacts as irrigation projects, and in any case many projects are ‘multi-purpose' projects. Secondly, compensation and rehabilitation should have reference not to the nature of the project but to the nature of the impact. Whatever be the project, if an agricultural community is uprooted from its land and homestead, it has to be enabled to practise agriculture elsewhere, and not expected to become carpenters or weavers or traders.
(xi) Other matters: A number of officials and institutions are specified in the Bill, such as the Collector, Administrator of R&R, Commissioner of R&R, etc., but it is only in the R&R Committee that there is a significant non-official presence. The National Monitoring Committee is not ‘participatory'; apart from officials, it includes only a few experts. As indicated earlier, the idea of a National Rehabilitation Commission has been abandoned.
Incidentally, it is not clear why displacement by natural calamities should be brought within the purview of this Bill. There is a vital difference between unavoidable displacement caused by nature and deliberate displacement caused by human decisions.
Summing up, the Bill seems to be essentially driven by a desire to make land acquisition for industrialisation and urbanisation easier. It is clear that the Bill, which does contain many good features, nevertheless requires substantial improvement.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article2366476.ece
The Bill has gone through certain improvements based on suggestions received from various social movements and recommendations of the Standing Committee, yet it falls short of what is required to protect natural and human resource-based communities and uphold truly democratic development planning. This is the view of the masses, not the corporates. On which side are the government and political parties? They can’t sit on the fence when farms are burning !
Last week, the Cabinet deferred discussion on the newly renamed Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill, 2012, which was scheduled to be introduced in Parliament in the monsoon session. On Tuesday, several Ministers — mostly from infrastructure ministries — brought up concerns about provisions in the Bill, resulting in further delay as the matter will now be decided by a GoM.
The original Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011, was introduced in Parliament last September and referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee. The panel’s report was submitted in May this year, following which the Rural Development Ministry re-wrote the Bill to incorporate many of its recommendations.
After the original bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha last September, it was sent to a standing committee several of whose recommendations have been included in the amended version, the “Right to Fair Compensation, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Bill”.
The standing committee’s suggestion that the government should not get involved in land acquisition for private industry was, however, rejected by the rural development ministry, which drew up the draft.
The original bill said the government would acquire land for public-private partnership (PPP) projects and private companies only with the consent of 80 per cent of the project-affected people, a category that includes the landowners as well as those dependent on the land for their livelihood. The revised bill relaxes this provision, saying consent is needed from 80 per cent of the landowners only.
A few thousand representatives of various people’s movements from across the country gathered at Jantar Mantar in the national capital. They are Dalits, Adiviasis, sections of unprotected working class including farmers and fish-workers but they all form one ‘biradari’ of those who live off land, water, forest. They are the ones who produce, distribute, build, operate, clean, sell, drive and do all that enable society to survive, proceed and progress. But the tragedy is that they have to battle for their own survival. And that is what they do, through non-violent means, against a state that plots to evict them, rob them of their meagre resources, transfer the capital in their hands to corporates in the name of development and then compel them to beg for rehabilitation. Asserting their right to resources and to make their own plans to develop those resources, they are also questioning a development model that is undemocratic, inequitable and unjust.
In Medha`s words:They are at Jantar Mantar to agitate against the upcoming ‘Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill’. They want to convey the message that it is time to review and discard the British legacy of forcible acquisition on the basis of ‘eminent domain’ of the state and stress the eminent domain of the people who are both at the root of democracy as well as its top. When money and labour, two of the three capital resources for any ‘development’ project (a dam, industry, infrastructure etc.) can’t be taken by force, how can any statutory agency forcibly acquire the third resource — land?
The Telegraph reports:“The original bill had more stringent conditions. It is surprising that the cabinet, which approved the original bill, is saying the amended bill is anti-industrialisation and anti-urbanisation,” National Advisory Council member N.C. Saxena said.
Introducing the bill last year, rural development minister Jairam Ramesh had said: “The bill aims to ensure a humane, participatory (and) informed consultative and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructure facilities and urbanisation with least disturbance to owners of land and other affected families.”
Saxena said Ramesh’s statement, which would have reflected the government’s view at the time, was clearly that the bill would “facilitate industrialisation and urbanisation”.
Among those who opposed the draft bill today was urban development minister Kamal Nath, who wanted deletion of the requirement for a social impact assessment by the district administration in consultation with the gram sabha. (See chart)
The amended bill says compensation should be twice the market rate in urban areas and two to four times the market rate in rural areas depending on the project’s distance from the nearest urban area.
In one way, though, the amended bill is “tougher” than the original, which said the proposed law would not apply to land acquisition under a set of 16 central laws. These included the Special Economic Zones Act, Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, Atomic Energy Act, Electricity Act, Railways Act, Works of Defence Act and Cantonment Act.
Following the standing committee’s advice against exempting any of these 16 acts from the land bill’s provisions, the revised bill says the land acquisition law will apply to the SEZ Act, Works of Defence Act and Cantonment Act.
For the other 13 laws, land acquisition will be conducted as before but the compensation and the rehabilitation-and-resettlement benefits will be the same as those under the land acquisition bill.
Commerce minister Anand Sharma has opposed bringing SEZs under the land acquisition bill.
(http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120829/jsp/frontpage/story_15910787.jsp#.UD4u16DRnKQ)
While even the British restricted acquisition to government projects termed as “public purpose”, our elected governments amended the Act of 1894 to legitimise acquisition for private companies and public-private partnership projects. Prime rural and urban land is being acquired, while lakhs of hectares of barren waste land or acquired but unused land is being ignored. The policy has created havoc. In urban areas, basti after basti is evicted in the name of ‘redevelopment’, ensuring huge profits for builders and developers. The results are obvious. With more than 18 lakh hectares of agricultural land directed to non-agricultural purpose in 10 years, and the urban land ceiling acts in States having been repealed, houses are beyond the reach of the middle class. Between 25 and 60 per cent of urban poor live in slums or are homeless.
The recent report of the all-party committee on the Bill appreciates the issues and reservations raised by many of us: no forcible acquisition for private or PPP projects; no acquisition of agricultural land — one crop or multiple crop; and bringing under the purview of this Act, all Central Acts used for land acquisition in sector such as mining, highways, railways, ports etc. It also recognises the role of the Gram Sabha and Basti Sabha, in deciding public purpose to planning the project, deciding the R&R and then monitoring it. This is nothing new, but reiterates the framework provided through Article 243 (73rd and 74th Amendment) of the Constitution, incorporated in 1992-93. If the land allotted to any industry/project is not used for five years, it can go back to the landowner, the report recommends.
Unfortunately, the Ministry of Rural Development is not agreeable to many of these reasonable proposals. Only multiple-crop land can be excluded, it says. How is this possible if, for instance, a single-crop plot is sandwiched between two multiple crop ones? Today’s non-irrigated land can be tomorrow’s irrigated. Rural development should have agriculturists as the prime beneficiaries, not the corporates. The latter are pushing state acquisition through the Ministry of Rural Development for their own benefit. Why should the MoRD or the government bow before them? The answer lies in the politician-bureaucrat-corporate nexus.
But the movements can’t submit to this. They are demanding that the government not act as the property dealer for private corporations. Public purpose itself is defined by the Ministry of Rural Development in a manner worse than in the British Act.
The weakest part endorsed by both the committee and the MoRD is, however, rehabilitation. The number of displaced/affected people since Independence is anywhere between eight and 12 crore (the number is never final as many categories are left out, such as canal-affected persons in dam constructions, and where the government has no comprehensive record). Up to 86 per cent of this number has been left pauper for generations. Whether it is Bhakra Nangal or Narmada, coastal communities of fish-workers, slum dwellers or victims of industrial development, each State has lakhs of families waiting to be rehabilitated, and still in struggle mode.
The only progressive rehabilitation policy in Sardar Sarovar dam-Narmada Project could be brought about only through a continuous struggle over the past 27 years by the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Why can’t the same provisions become part of the new Act, people ask. The answer is: no political will. Only cash — four to six times the market value, as in the Haryana, Gurgaon or U.P. models — is not rehabilitation. ‘Cash’ was offered by the British as well. It has failed to ensure livelihood. Today’s market can be very deceptive and elusive for simple farmers or labourers. Why can’t a government ensure an alternative source of livelihood using the same cash instead of destroying and dividing integrated, non-cash-based communities?
In short, the opportunity to democratise and decentralise planning to minimise diversion of land and destruction of agriculture, and to stop uprooting our own people must be viewed with all seriousness. People in every State are demanding an end to these policies. If this cry is not responded to by changing the Bill to incorporate the committee’s recommendations and calling for wider consultations for true land reforms, serious conflict can only intensify, for which the present rulers will be forced to pay a heavy price in 2014.
Medha Patkar responds
The response to my article by Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Rural Development, and his colleagues is a welcome move towards a public debate which we have suggested, time and again, should be held in every State with all people’s organisations. I would like to briefly reply to some points in the Minister’s response:
His argument that land is finite cannot be used to justify forcible acquisition. The Bill proposed by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) is clinging on to a colonial legacy. The consent of the gram sabhas, the community and people should be the precondition before any natural resource, land or mineral, is acquired. Exceptions can be made in post-calamity, post-riot situations or in acquisitions of land holdings that are above the ceiling. Can a decentralised Development Planning Act serve the purpose? Let the community put forth its vision and plan as per Article 243 of the Constitution; what is completely unacceptable is for the government to acquire land for private and PPP projects.
Saving agricultural land for food security and for the livelihood of crores in this country is a must for our survival. The All Party Parliamentary Standing Committee itself has realised this. Not 18 lakh, but 180 lakh hectares (typographical error in the original article) was diverted in a decade for non-agricultural purposes. We are not against, but for true industrialisation. The trend of industries grabbing land and public resource, next to expensive public infrastructure and using it for recreation goes against all norms of public purpose.
It must be reversed. The States too must be restrained in the public interest from undertaking forcible acquisition.
“Public Purpose,” as defined in the Bill is widened beyond acceptable limits through a new fraudulent category of “public interest” projects. Even the British never did this.
The rehabilitation provided by the Bill is certainly not fair, nor adequate for an alternative livelihood. Cash being no option, land for land as provided in the 2007 policy (with “may” as a prefix) is also not in the amended bill. How can the government not have enough land for rehabilitation, when it can and does purchase thousands of acres of land for private corporations and entities? Also, why is no one talking about rehabilitation of those already displaced? Make the law applicable with retrospective effect and include all other Acts with the “acquisition” clause under the new Act.
The present Bill has gone through certain improvements based on our critique and the recommendations of the Standing Committee, yet it falls far short of what is required to protect natural and human resource-based communities and uphold truly democratic development planning. This is the view of the masses, not the corporates. On which side are the government and political parties? They can’t sit on the fence when farms are burning.
(Medha Patkar is a social activist and founder of Narmada Bachao Andolan and National Alliance of People’s Movements.)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3832612.ece
Highlights of the Bill
The Bill provides for land acquisition as well as rehabilitation and resettlement. It replaces the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The process for land acquisition involves a Social Impact Assessment survey, preliminary notification stating the intent for acquisition, a declaration of acquisition, and compensation to be given by a certain time. All acquisitions require rehabilitation and resettlement to be provided to the people affected by the acquisition.
Compensation for the owners of the acquired land shall be four times the market value in case of rural areas and twice in case of urban areas.
In case of acquisition of land for use by private companies or public private partnerships, consent of 80 per cent of the displaced people will be required. Purchase of large pieces of land by private companies will require provision of rehabilitation and resettlement.
The provisions of this Bill shall not apply to acquisitions under 16 existing legislations including the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the Railways Act, 1989, etc.
Key Issues and Analysis
It is not clear whether Parliament has jurisdiction to impose rehabilitation and resettlement requirements on private purchase of agricultural land.
The requirement of a Social Impact Assessment for every acquisition without a minimum thresholdmay delay the implementation of certain government programmes.
Projects involving land acquisition and undertaken by private companies or public private partnerships require the consent of 80 per cent of the people affected. However, no such consent is required in case of PSUs.
The market value is based on recent reported transactions. This value is doubled in rural areas to arrive at the compensation amount. This method may not lead to an accurate adjustment for the possible underreporting of prices in land transactions.
|
|
