The Hindu Business Line : `Land acquisition must be transparent'

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.

More Stories on : Interview | Infrastructure | Real Estate & Construction

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Lands of contention

Are we ready for merchant power?

India's growing water crisis

`Land acquisition must be transparent'

Due diligence comes calling

Deliverance for autorickshaw users?