Anda di halaman 1dari 3

Land Bill Debate: Changing Mindsets

Karan Javaji
June 15th 2015
Land in India is an expansive entity with a historical significance of its
own. It has been a symbol of fertility and wealth on one hand and of
struggle and hardship on the other. The cultural context of land has
evolved over time starting from when the first notion of individual
ownership arose in the post-Vedic era. From a community based
resource it gradually became more and more individual-centric. The
British morphed the land system to suit their revenue needs. But these
changes had catastrophic effects on the rural economy and agriculture.
Even today we see public policy is concerned with repairing these ills.
One of these ills is land acquisition. Land acquisition is based on the
principle of eminent domainthe power of the government to take
private land and use it for public benefit. Until recently, land
acquisition in India was governed by a colonial era law dating back to
1894. Understanding that the process of land acquisition has been
shaped by it being historically situated in a uniquely colonial endeavor
is crucial to analyzing the current debate on land acquisition.
The very principle of eminent domain is a Western concept that has
relevance in individualistic societies but has little relevance in a
community based society such as ours. Land ownership was
community based in Ancient India. Land use was decided on the basis
of community input. People easily recognized the benefit of giving up
some land for some developmental outcome, because they saw
themselves not as individuals but as an integral part of a community.
But under the British this was no longer the case. Now an outside
power declared that it could do whatever it wanted with all the land in
India. This led to a rampant feeling of alienation, because Indians felt
robbed out of what was rightfully theirs. There was a disconnect
between those losing their land and those benefitting from that land.
The growing inequality was easily visible.
After independence, the constitution aimed to remedy this situation by
guaranteeing the fundamental right to property and simultaneously
initiating land reforms. It was during the (in)famous 44th Constitutional
Amendment that the right to property was demoted from its status as
a fundamental right, thereby clearing the way for the government to
acquire land according to its whims and fancies. Post-independence
history has seen several court cases and debates on the issue.
As we can see, the history of land acquisition starting from the British,
has sprouted in an atmosphere of mistrust and negativity. It is for this

reason, that the recent Land Acquisition Act, 2013 was a welcome step
in the right direction because it ensured greater transparency and
justice from the viewpoint of those who lose their land and livelihood.
But the shortcomings of the legislation were that it was based off
political considerations rather than pragmatic ones. It refused to
acknowledge that the reality of land acquisition had been corrupted by
historical approaches towards it. Today, people no longer trust the
system. We have witnessed an emergence of power brokers,
middlemen and greedy landlords who look to milk the opportunity
arising from land acquisition. And it is this section of society that
benefits from the undue delays of stalled infrastructure projects, while
it is the deserving and the poor who are left out of development.
Every seconds delay in starting a project, is a second more of suffering
for someone who has been denied the fruits of development.
This sense of urgency was lost in the 2013 Act, but has been reflected
in the recently proposed Amendments. The Amendments simply
attempt to exclude five critical categories of projects: defence, rural
infrastructure, affordable housing, industrial corridors and
infrastructure projects from some of the stringent requirements of the
Act. These requirements, such as 70-80% consent of landowners, social
impact assessment and restrictions of agricultural land, may look great
on paper, but good governance is not about looking good on paper.
Good governance is about recognizing ground realities and coming up
with tangible solutions.
The Opposition has turned on all their engines to mobilize people
against the amendment. The sad reality is that they are playing on the
fear and insecurity of poor farmers. Rather than trying to genuinely
help the farmers, the message being implied by the Congress Party is
that it believes in retaining the status quo: The farmers are suffering
but we wont do anything about it. Let them keep their land and
continue to suffer while we dole out just enough freebies for them to
survive.
This is the form of welfare policies that the Congress has followed
rather than genuinely empowering people the way the current
government is trying to do. Even the proposed Amendments are
enabling provisions rather than constricting. Enabling legislations give
space to the executive and tests their ability for innovation and
balancing interests. On the other hand if you severely limit the
administrative space, you end up with the policy implementation
paralysis that we had for so long. It is therefore too early for the
opposition to criticize the Amendments, because we still do not know
how democratically these provisions will be implemented.

I come from a farming family and understand the struggles of a farmer.


A farmer, just like anyone else, ultimately cares about living a good
life. If a farmer is leading a good life, it does not matter whether he is
farming or not. Farmers are worried about losing their land, not
because of the love for farming, but because they dont think they can
get better opportunities if they lose the only thing they know how to
do.
After centuries of lost trust, the government needs to rebuild trust. It
can start this by ensuring that the focus is not only on monetary
compensation for land thats given up, but also livelihood
compensation. We need a mindset shift inspired by the shared
community based lives led by our ancestors. Perhaps we can think of
ways of making landowners stakeholders in the projects that come up
on their lands. This could be in the form of equity in the project in lieu
of monetary compensation. Along the same lines, the issue of consent
will never come up if the projects themselves transpire at the
grassroots level. Wherever possible, the planning of projects should at
least start at the local level and then progress to higher governance
levels depending on the support needed.
By filling the trust deficit and undoing the constructed idea of land
acquisition being evil, this jumpstarting of the process will help us
move a step closer towards the ideal democracywhere we act in the
best interest of the community and will doubly benefit in the process.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai