Land acquisition must be transparent'

G. Srinivasan

If industry wants to acquire land, the Government should act as an
umpire and set broad guidelines to ensure that the transaction takes
place in a transparent way. — MR JAIRAM RAMESH, MINISTER OF STATE FOR
COMMERCE

As the scorching pace of land acquisition for special economic zones or
industrialisation purposes has made the jittery peasantry take to the
streets, bolstered by the non-governmental organisations, the issue has
been hijacked by political parties. It is small wonder that no less a
person than the Prime Minister proclaimed at the annual general meeting
of the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) on
January 8, that "issues such as land acquisition and displacement of
people and their rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) should be
addressed transparently and effectively. They can and will be."

He also doused the ire of the farming community over the land
acquisition for industrialisation, stating that his government would be
finalising a new rehabilitation policy in the next three months, which
will be "more progressive, humane and conducive to the long-term welfare
of all the stakeholders in our economy".

Against this backdrop of simmering tensions over the new export model
exemplified by the SEZs, which duly qualify for State patronage to a
substantial extent and duration, the Minister of State for Commerce, Mr
Jairam Ramesh, defends the policy for exporters and cites his senior
colleague, Mr Kamal Nath, who once said: "SEZs require land. They are
not built in the air and they are built on the ground". Mr Ramesh
contends the real question is the mode of acquisition of the land —
whether farmers get the real compensation for the land, whether the
prime agricultural land has been diverted for SEZs, whether SEZ projects
are really creating value and not becoming real-estate projects.

"We have to build safeguards. A lot of hullabaloo is created on the land
issue. It is serious in some areas when a project goes about acquiring
10,000 acres. We need to approach this in a balanced way, without
getting into a theological debate on industry versus agriculture".

The reality is the groundswell of protests against the proliferation of
these SEZs, the latest to draw prolonged and violent protests being and
Nandigram, both in West Bengal, ruled by the Marxist Party which lends
outside support to the United Progressive Alliance Government at the
Centre.

According to Mr Ramesh, "it is an issue of political mobilisation and
agitational politics. All the people who are raising concerns cannot be
dismissed as Luddites or people wanting to go back into the
pre-industrial era. But how do you engage in consultation and go about
the acquisition in a transparent manner and give assurances to families
about protecting their economic livelihood interests ? Yet, it is not as
if the agitation is genuine — even in Singur, some of the Naxalites had
sort of usurped the Mamata protest. So also in Kalinganagar in Orissa.
The Jamads in Nandigram started off on a valid issue but soon got
hijacked by communal and naxalite elements.

It is really ironical that, whether it is the Orissa steel plant or the
Bustar steel plant or Singur, it is the Tatas who are now at the
receiving end. Just as anti-social elements have hijacked the protest
movement, Tatas' corporate rivals may have contributed to the fuelling
of the protests."

To put the issue in perspective and seek his views on the adverse
consequences of the reforms pursued by the Department of Commerce, and
also to address the related concerns, Business Line spoke to the
articulate and urbane Jairam Ramesh.

Excerpts from the interview:

"I think the acquisition of land by the Government and then giving it to
private parties is something that needs to be reviewed as this approach
does not yield maximum benefit to the farmers. If there is private
transaction between industry and the farmers, the latter must be ensured
of market rates. Having said this, one should also realise that in
States such as Kerala and West Bengal with dense population and
intensive cultivation, if you want some industrialisation there, you
would have to give up agricultural land. This is a problem that is
peculiar to these two States but not Haryana.

Punjab's population may not be dense, but it certainly has the most
intensive form of cultivation. So we need industrialisation and modern
industry, which will require land. But the real issue is compensation.
Now, who gets the compensation — the tiller, the peasant or the
sharecropper or the one who has the title to the land? Operation Burga
was a great step forward and I applaud the CPM government for taking the
initiative. The Burgadas themselves have sub-let their lands — in many
cases to tenants and sharecroppers who do not get the full benefit of
compensation — while the Burgadas based in Kolkata get it. We need to
address this issue.

If industry wants to acquire land, the Government should act as an
umpire and set broad guidelines to ensure that transaction takes place
transparently. Industrialisation is necessary, but it cannot be forced.
China and Pudong were able to develop by forcibly evicting people. You
can't do that in India.

I don't subscribe to the view that once a peasant always peasant.
Industry creates occupation not only within itself but also in the
services economy. Given a choice, most people do not want to work on
land. The last National Sample Organisation's "Situation Assessment
Survey of Indian Farming" shows that bulk of farmer families do not want
to cultivate land — they are doing it because they have no other option.

Our record in rehabilitation, whether it relates to power or irrigation
projects, leaves a lot to be desired. Displacement of people as a result
of development projects has been significant and the tribal population
has suffered the most. The National Advisory Council (NAC) to the UPA
Government has made some recommendations and many of these issues are
being discussed in the Government.

We do not have an institutional mechanism today. For instance, Andhra
Pradesh is building a giant irrigation project. The Polavaram project
has created a big controversy. What we need is an independent
institution at arm's length relationship from the government that can
act as the monitoring body for R&R — not for approving the
rehabilitation plan but for monitoring its implementation, a forum for
ventilating grievances — similar to the National Human Rights Commission
at the State level.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/01/12/stories/2007011202580900.htm