One of the few institutions that people of India still have faith in is the Supreme Court of India (SC) and others being Army, Navy, Air Force and Election Commission. Time and again SC has come forward to safeguard the interest of the common people with rulings that defied and constrained mighty state and central governments.
The recent SC ruling that instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to return 156 hectare of land to farmers is a welcome step in the rampant corruption done in the name of Land Acquisition. The observation made by the SC as to why the government acquires land in the name of infrastructure development and then the same land is given to land promoters to build residential complexes and malls. I believe, the SC being an institute of high ethics remained short of blaming state governments of being in cohorts with land sharks to propagate corruption and returning favors to scrupulous business entities.
Ironically much of acquisition is still governed by the archaic Land Acquisition Act (1894). It was created by British rulers and there is no doubt like other Indian laws (British in origin) it was created with sole purpose to rule (read subjugate) the people and not to serve the people. It is a surprise why even after six decades of independence there is no relevant land acquisition law that is more attuned to the needs of the country.
In India specially, the land acquisition has become a very touchy issue and raises extreme reactions from people who are affected by it. Many will find land acquisition by government a legitimate way to acquire land to build roads, flyovers, rail lines and other infrastructure elements that are very much required to keep the economy running. At present there are many big projects that are stalled because of land acquisition issues.
A natural question is why people are opposing the government when the government wants to build infrastructure for its people. To understand the core issue one need to rephrase the question. Is the government really executing these projects for the benefit of people by acquiring their lands? And there lies the key to the problem. Most of the big infrastructure projects are under PPP (public-private-partnership) model where private firms gets the bigger share of the pie by investing less and getting all sorts of grants in the name of doing these great jobs. So at the very root these projects are not necessarily designed to serve the needs of the people but rather in disguise to fatten the bottom lines of big companies who in return give financial assistance to political parties during elections. In most of the infrastructure projects the farmers and agricultural land has become the biggest victim. The private firms have found a goldmine to make money by piggy backing the government with least amount of liability and responsibility.
The modus operandi is very simple. The agricultural land is cheap (read very cheap) and large populations of farmers who own it are illiterate or unaware of the consequences. Driven by vested interests (and on the behest of big companies) the politicians in power announce big projects and in return the big companies give assurance of large investments. The government acquires land and good amount of kickbacks change hands. The big companies get the land for peanuts, and politicians/officials get their pockets stuffed. Later in that land, a part of the land is used for so called infrastructure and other part for building commercial buildings. Everybody in the position of power or privilege makes a killing. And the original owner of the land either commits suicide or becomes a daily laborer in the gardens, or security guards at the gates of the rich. What an irony!
Governments by definition are supposed to be defending the rights and interests of the weakest in the society. But in the case of land acquisitions, time and again the governments have acted contrarily to this constitutional duty of theirs. It is not a rocket-science to find out the real reason as to why they have done this.
I am no expert on land acquisition issues and its nuances but I believe the people who formulate policies could surely include following common sense suggestions to make the process of land acquisition really work for the benefit and development of people.
- The owners of the land will always remain the owners (with limited rights), instead of the government acquiring the land, the owners will lease the land to the government and the government in turn will lease it to the companies.
- The government will make certain upfront payment to owners and dependents upon acquisition.
- The government will pay lease payment to owners and dependents on annual basis.
- The lease amount will be revised every 5 or 6 years and the increased payment must be paid to owners and dependents.
- Upon lease expiration the government can either return the land to the owners (very rare), renew lease, or give it some other business on a new lease.
- Before land acquisition, in a specific area the acquiring agency must make public the detailed rehabilitation plans for the affected people. It should also point out the socio-economic and environmental changes the proposed acquisition will bring in. Then it should conduct a poll asking the people to either reject or accept the proposed acquisition. If the 3/4 majority accepts the proposal then only acquisition should begin.
- In another model government can acquire a larger portion of land and then return part of the land to the owners and dependents after commercially developing it. In this model owners will get larger upfront payment as well as land that they can commercially use. Let me mention this model should the least preferred model only when government ought to acquire land for national interests.
It is clear that people are not opposed to land acquisition and development but what they are opposed to is the unfair treatment meted out to them in the name of development. The same illiterate farmers and the oblivious village population have seen and understood the game plan of business-political nexus in the name of development. They are up in protest for their right to life and livelihood. I for one fully support their struggle, because I can bear the hardships of inferior infrastructure rather than enjoy the luxury of "blood" stained rails, roads and malls. Also my country’s constitution never approved the act of killing ones means of livelihood for the luxury and greed of few.
I am awed by observation made by justice Singvhi in the Noida Land Acquisition case. In his word, “You and me will not understand the feelings or the psyche of a farmer. By taking away their land, you take away not only their home and hearth and their livelihood but also that of subsequent generations. They are reduced to landless labourers and marginalised to slums.” How true, precise and straightforward, hats off to you my lord!
People own the land and let the Law of the land protect people’s right.
