The clandestine ordinance on Land Acquisition passed by the Modi govt. is gathering storm these days with massive protests by the farmers across the nation, spearheaded by the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare who has resorted to his customary mode of protest, accompanied by his political buddy Kejriwal. The ordinance seems to expose Modi government's political "jumla" of Acche din that had fetched him a majority in the parliament but has become an albatross around his neck, with his major political adversaries taking a jibe at him for deceiving the food provider of the country. So what makes this act so reprehensible in the eyes of farmers and so indispensable in the eyes of progressive economists like Amartya Sen? Let's try to dig through the details and analyse it for ourselves.
So, what is the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 2014 all about? Before we analyse the act introduced by the Modi govt., let's have a brief overview of the history of the act to make it more comprehensible and easier for us to spot out its benefits and deficiencies.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under the British rule
According to this act, the govt. can acquire land from the landlord at nominal price and the tenant would be entitled to 1/8 th of the compensation. This seemed quite unjust as it was a severe blow to the underprivileged. The reason Britishers trampled over the livelihoods of tenants was simple- the weak have no voice and thus won't oppose the decision.
Land Acquisition Act, 2013
This act was passed by the UPA govt. to ensure transparency in the process of land acquisition and provide a fair share to farmers and the tenants whose lives were affected directly by the process. However, the act was criticized because of this feature. Many saw it as an impediment to the process of industrialization and urbanization as the land acquirer will now be vulnerable to numerous demands from unprecedented number of people claiming to be hit by the process. So, this solution of Jairam Ramesh seemed to neither benefit the industrialist nor the middle class flocking to the urban areas in dire need of employment and housing.
Land Acquisition Act, 2014
Then comes Mr. Modi with his ambitious Make in India campaign, promising to revive the Indian economy by spearheading the share of manufacturing sector in GDP towards new heights, on the lines of Chinese growth policy. To promulgate his economic policy to the foreign investors, the Modi govt. brought amendments to previous bill and passed an ordinance making it much more easier for the govt. to acquire land from the farmers without having any liabilities whatsoever towards the tenants directly dependent on the land for their livelihood. With around 140 million farmers directly affected by this decision, this issue cannot be easily undermined. Anna Hazare has called it a draconian law resembling that of Britishers. Also whether the land is fertile or not will not be taken into consideration, clearly underscoring the govt.'s neglect towards the feeders of the country.
However, the amendments have been well received by a few economists. The most notable among them is the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. Mr. Sen recalls that cities like London, Paris and Lancashire are all founded on fertile lands. He justifies the act arguing that the net output of the industries set up on fertile lands easily supersedes the agricultural output. He further insists that in developed countries like UK, Canada or Australia, a very small population is engaged in agriculture. According to him, decrements in the number of people engaged in farming does not bring down the productivity, rather increases the per capita income of the country, given the industries absorb the extra numbers. Mr. Sen claims that industrialization is the need of the hour and it is the prerogative of the govt. to create an ambience in the country that is amenable to business settings and makes the entrepreneurs feel safe.
I think Mr. Sen has a solid point. But the govt. should not forget to provide some sort of support to the poor peasants whose bread is entirely dependent on the land being acquired. A fair compensation to not just the landlord but also to the tenants working under him is indispensable. We should definitely embark on our journey towards industrialization to realize our dream of becoming a superpower, but at the same time not forget to guard the interests of the underprivileged. After all, we are an egalitarian society and the superpower symbol won't accord us anything if our bread providers are committing suicides out of desperation.
So, what is the Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 2014 all about? Before we analyse the act introduced by the Modi govt., let's have a brief overview of the history of the act to make it more comprehensible and easier for us to spot out its benefits and deficiencies.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under the British rule
According to this act, the govt. can acquire land from the landlord at nominal price and the tenant would be entitled to 1/8 th of the compensation. This seemed quite unjust as it was a severe blow to the underprivileged. The reason Britishers trampled over the livelihoods of tenants was simple- the weak have no voice and thus won't oppose the decision.
Land Acquisition Act, 2013
This act was passed by the UPA govt. to ensure transparency in the process of land acquisition and provide a fair share to farmers and the tenants whose lives were affected directly by the process. However, the act was criticized because of this feature. Many saw it as an impediment to the process of industrialization and urbanization as the land acquirer will now be vulnerable to numerous demands from unprecedented number of people claiming to be hit by the process. So, this solution of Jairam Ramesh seemed to neither benefit the industrialist nor the middle class flocking to the urban areas in dire need of employment and housing.
Land Acquisition Act, 2014
Then comes Mr. Modi with his ambitious Make in India campaign, promising to revive the Indian economy by spearheading the share of manufacturing sector in GDP towards new heights, on the lines of Chinese growth policy. To promulgate his economic policy to the foreign investors, the Modi govt. brought amendments to previous bill and passed an ordinance making it much more easier for the govt. to acquire land from the farmers without having any liabilities whatsoever towards the tenants directly dependent on the land for their livelihood. With around 140 million farmers directly affected by this decision, this issue cannot be easily undermined. Anna Hazare has called it a draconian law resembling that of Britishers. Also whether the land is fertile or not will not be taken into consideration, clearly underscoring the govt.'s neglect towards the feeders of the country.
However, the amendments have been well received by a few economists. The most notable among them is the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen. Mr. Sen recalls that cities like London, Paris and Lancashire are all founded on fertile lands. He justifies the act arguing that the net output of the industries set up on fertile lands easily supersedes the agricultural output. He further insists that in developed countries like UK, Canada or Australia, a very small population is engaged in agriculture. According to him, decrements in the number of people engaged in farming does not bring down the productivity, rather increases the per capita income of the country, given the industries absorb the extra numbers. Mr. Sen claims that industrialization is the need of the hour and it is the prerogative of the govt. to create an ambience in the country that is amenable to business settings and makes the entrepreneurs feel safe.
I think Mr. Sen has a solid point. But the govt. should not forget to provide some sort of support to the poor peasants whose bread is entirely dependent on the land being acquired. A fair compensation to not just the landlord but also to the tenants working under him is indispensable. We should definitely embark on our journey towards industrialization to realize our dream of becoming a superpower, but at the same time not forget to guard the interests of the underprivileged. After all, we are an egalitarian society and the superpower symbol won't accord us anything if our bread providers are committing suicides out of desperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment