Once again, the focus is on Agriculture in the
national media, but as usual for not-so-good reasons. From GM crops to the
farmer's suicide, the baton is now transferred to the discussions (political or
subsistence level) on the proposed move to amend the Land Acquisition Bill. As
the debates on political callousness and insensitivity to the farmer's distress
and documentaries/ series on killer fields are aired and the never-ending chain
of problems continue to ravage Indian
Agriculture, some thoughts on the recent addition to issues, namely amendments
in the land acquisition bill are shared here.
Discussions were initiated on land acquisition
bill amendments on open, social media platforms like india.foodsecurityportal.org. This is commendable, since the
thoughts of a wider section of society are assumed to be included, while
framing policies affecting majority. The tillers of the land, whom the decision
pertaining to Land bill is going to affect seriously, may be oblivious of the
discussions online or otherwise, nor may be aware of the implications of such
amendments. Removal of 2 clauses that necessitates a) obtaining consent of the land owners for taking over
the land and b) Social Impact
Assessment before a project is initiated, in the pretext of bringing in
development and developing infrastructure and industrial revolution, is still
contentious.
At the first instance, removal of clause
that requires "obtaining consent of
land owners", seems to be outrageous and against the democratic
principles, the foundation itself of one of the largest democratic country in
the world. Is it the development of the majority of marginal sections of the
society, or the development of only a few handful of business class, that is
aimed at, by such amendments? What are the development projects which are
considered as bringing in so-called development of the society? Are these
projects delineated into classes as most essential/ imperative or indispensable
or dispensable, such as projects for public transport (railways, roads),
irrigation etc or just to set up private industrial units or MNCs? Or what will
be the criteria for classification of such industrial projects? Is there any
strict guideline or definition of what sort of industries can be established
after taking over the land without the consent of the owner and what sort of
land can be taken over for industrial use? Land itself is classified into
arable/ culturable land, culturable waste land and land fit for industrial use.
The same rule if applicable to all classes of land will prove destructive to an
already ailing agricultural sector. Which
land can be used for what purpose has to be clear.
We have seen the good and bad effects of
globalisation, where the large
population of India was but only a big market/ consumers for the global
business giants and the motive was only providing business to MNCs.
Globalisation and opening of markets/ economy did improve the standards of
living of people due to access and better exposure to facilities and goods of
the developed world. But our HR or Human
Resource Development/ Social Development Index is abysmally poor. India is
one of the countries ranking high in poverty, not the direct after-math of
globalisation, but reflects our
inability in setting our priorities/ goals right.
After the so-called
development of industrial units, what will we eat to sustain us?
Obviously, we can't live with only air or water nor can we eat computers or electronic
goods or industrial goods. Food is the basic requirement for any living being.
The lop-sided attitude of favouring development, by neglecting agriculture or
overtaking agricultural land, will in the long term prove fatal and is like
building castles without any foundation. Increasing food production and
productivity in the context of burgeoning population and shrinking natural
resources, especially of the land, is the greatest challenge in agriculture in the third world countries, now and in
future. Diverting agricultural land for other uses, by forceful taking over of
land without the consent of the owner, will further aggravate the situation.
Climate change or global warming is another issue to be addressed for
increasing productivity. Self-sufficiency in food production is imperative and
has to be encouraged than self-wrecking consumerism. We cannot depend on other
countries to address our basic requirements, nor can go back to
"begging" for food, a situation that existed before Green Revolution.
Agriculture for long
has been neglected when "development" of the economy is considered.
Agriculture is considered to be the primary sector where at least 48% (or 60%?,
it used to be 75% once) of unorganised work force is making a livelihood. But
it is a strange contradiction that, a country's economy is considered as
"developed" when the contribution of primary sector to GDP is less
and that of secondary and tertiary sectors are more or in higher proportions.
We want development, not lop-sided but holistic. Why "primary sector"
or agriculture is to be excluded from the concepts of development? Why not
include Agriculture as well in development than excluding it? Development
will be primitive, if primary needs such as food are neglected.
Why our primary sector
doesn't have the glamour nor status of the elite sectors? It's a lot more of
perception than reality. "Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan" used to be
the slogan, but with the changing notions/ dynamics of development/
modernisation, agricultural sector is considered as lack-lustre.
"Kisan" was equivalent to the soldier. Food sector is important as
the defence sector. The farming community is losing out, due to the dismal
issues/ situations plaguing the agriculture sector. Farming is no longer
considered as a profitable or revered occupation, due to lack of proper support
system. Majority of farmers, if given a choice would never want their future
generations to engage in farming nor consider farming as a decent source of
living.
"Make in India"
is an attractive and beautiful concept but it cannot be realistic, and the very
purpose of development will not materialise by excluding the primary sector
which is agriculture. In the changing equations of global markets/ world trade
regimes and open economies, where market force rather than military force can
make or mar a nation, India cannot afford to import the basic requirements. Why food doesn't fall into the "Make in India" concept?
It is true that many of
the development projects are stalled due to delay in acquiring land. Every
individual of the state has the right to own land/ property and are free to buy
or sell the property to anyone she/ he wishes within the territory of the
nation. In urban areas, people themselves will be willing to provide the land
for infrastructure development (like the Metros), when the serious problems
faced by them would be solved by these mega projects. But in rural areas, the
"amended" law can be easily misused.
Availability of land
for cultivation is a serious impediment in agriculture due to fragmentation of
land holdings and diversion of cultivable land for non-agricultural use. No
technology can be implemented successfully for increased farm production due to
the small size of land holdings. As per a recent report, the marginal farmers
with < 1-2 hectares land, and ironically a majority, are the silent sufferers
who find it difficult to earn a livelihood from agriculture. The large scale
farmers with > 10 hectares land are better off and find farming remunerative
due to affordability of inputs, facilities and technologies. In this scenario,
pooling of land is a good option. This is already done in states like Kerala,
where Farmers themselves organise into farming groups, pool the land and
resources, practise scientific cultivation and the profit is shared.
Sensitisation of farming community is required.
In the wake of the proposed move to amend the
land acquisition bill, the following suggestions are made as an agricultural
professional and restricted to agriculture-related issues.
1. It has to be clearly
defined what is the industrial use/ purpose or under which circumstances or
purpose, the owner's consent and SIA clause can be waivered. Is it for all types
of industries?
2. If the clause
regarding the consent is to be waivered for most essential/ major development
projects, it should not be waivered completely, but the proportion of
landowners whose consent is to be obtained can be reduced to 20% from 70-80%. These projects may be
initiated by state and executed by public enterprises for the common benefit of
society.
3. Only after providing satisfactory compensation and
adequate relocation, shall the projects be initiated.
4. Sensitisation
programmes to educate the people of the benefits is a must. People
participation in projects especially of the affected ones should be encouraged.
5. Public-private
partnerships should be encouraged for infrastructure development than solely of
private enterprises, for mega projects.
6. Strict and tough
legislation should be made to prevent diversion of agricultural land for real
estate or non-agricultural use. Agricultural land, especially for paddy cultivation, cannot be sold or brought for non-agricultural use as per laws, at least in some states.
7. Not all land can be
used for industrial purpose, especially the agricultural land. Agricultural land
should be strictly used for agriculture-related use. If once-cultivated land
becomes unsuitable for any cultivation later, it can be used to set up
agri-based industries or small scale industries.
8. Agri-business
involving the farmers has to be encouraged and new/ innovative agri-business
models have to be implemented to make farming an attractive and profitable career
than occupation.
9. If culturable land
is fallow, the government should initiate technology transfer programmes in
such lands or farmers should organise and pool their land and other resources, than selling off the land for commercial or on-agricultural use. This is
similar to a co-operative mode of operation where farmers themselves organise
without any compulsion or force by external authorities, organise into farmers
groups and pool resources for intensive cultivation. This is already in
practise for paddy cultivation in some states.
10. Alternatively,
instead of farmers leasing in lands for cultivation and paying interest to land
lords, the public reseach organisations or KVKs can initiate programmes to take
over the land for cultivation and provide all inputs and practice intensive
scientific cultivation to improve productivity. The farmer can be paid/ given a
share from the profit from the sale of
the produce for using his land. The ownership of the land stays with the
farmer. This is similar to the farmer renting out his land for cultivation to the public authorities and will be best
extension method of demonstrating by doing/ practice than preach.But this model of adoptionis not be planned permanently ibut till a self-sustaining system is established.
11. Alternate
technologies for intensive cultivation wth less land requirement like glass
houses, culture rooms with artificial lighting, hydroponics etc should be
explored.
12. Technologies for
reclaiming polluted lands for agricultural use or converting land otherwise
unfit for cultivation should be explored.
Agriculture is closely
woven with "culture' itself of a vast majority of people rather than being
just an occupation.
Development should be
inclusive of masses and not only to be steered by private business empires.
The comments/suggestions
are published in the india.foodsecurityportal.org.
http://india.foodsecurityportal.org/content/topic-1various-options-compensating-and-resettling-farmers-whose-lands-will-be-acquired.
Disclaimer: The opinion
expressed here are only of the author and not of any third party or the
organisation in which she works.
