The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, identified the practice of international investors buying or leasing large amounts of farmland in developing countries as one of the new trends to emerge out of last year’s global food crisis, which needs to be addressed. No doubt, Shutter has given a new dimension to the whole controversy by linking it with international food crisis, the danger that is looming large in front of the whole humanity.
The reasons given by the UN official is quite similar to those given by the Indian environmentalists, human rights activists and political leaders. Shutter’s argument is based on the fact that the eviction of people who have informally cultivated the land for decades, the loss of access to land for indigenous peoples and pastoral populations, and increased competition for water resources are some of the potential detrimental impacts.
Schutter—who reports to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in an independent, unpaid capacity stressed that land not only represents the principal means to access and procure food for millions, it is also critical to the identity of certain people and communities.
In the Indian context, farmers are emotionally and psychologically attached to land. It is not only the only means to earn their livelihood, but psychologically the attachment is beyond any form of calculation. They are attached to it through generations. Forcibly taking land from the farmers is the worst possible crime against those who lose the ownership rights.This, the Left Front government in West Bengal has realised. The struggle in Nandigram and Singur has changed the whole land acquisition scenario in India.
Central government has also succumbed to the pressure to amend the century old law. On the penultimate day of the fourteenth Lok Sabha, the then rural development minister Raghubansh Prasad Singh was able to pass two very important bills, the land acquisition amendment bill, 2007 and rehabilitation and resettlement bill, 2007. Although the twin bills were passed in the absence of the NDA members and amid protests by the Left, Singh termed the bills historic in protecting the interests of the farmers and tribals.
“These bills will protect the interests of the poor farmers whose land is acquired for setting up industries. This is a historic step,” Singh remarked in the Lok Sabha.
But his joy was short lived as in the very next day, which happened to be the last day of the Rajya Sabha session, the entire opposition protested and Raghubansh failed to pass those very important amendments in the upper house. The amendments were framed after a prolonged debate in both in the cabinet and in the standing committee headed by Kalyan Singh, then a BJP leader. Facing opposition from both the BJP and the Left, he ultimately succumbed to the pressure and was left with no other choice but to retreat. Though the Left parties supported the Bills, they criticised the Government for introducing them in a hurry and setting aside some important and unanimous recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
CPI(M) members wanted to know whether the Government’s proposed rehabilitation package would cover the farmers who had sold their land directly to private developers. The Left members created uproar over the minister’s response that the Government could not take the responsibility of those farmers who had willingly sold their land claiming that this would give rise to “dalal raaj” (reign of middlemen).
During the current budget session UPA Government will once again try to pass the bill in the Rajya Sabha. If the amendments come into force, the whole land acquisition scenario will change. Then the private company has to acquire at least 70 per cent of the land required for the project paying a hefty amount, which is 50 per cent more than the market rate prevailing in the area. Government can procure land for private purposes, but that purpose is clearly defined in the bill.
More often than not, such acquisition of land leads to displacement of people, depriving them of their livelihood and shelter, restricting access to their traditional resource base, and uprooting them from their socio-cultural environment. These have traumatic, psychological and socio-cultural consequences for the affected population, which call for protecting their rights, including those of the weaker sections of society, particularly tribals, tenants, etc. Rehabilitation and resettlement of the persons and families affected by involuntary acquisition of private land and immovable property is of paramount importance. No government, in a democracy in particular, can wink at the need to extend the provisions of the extant policies or statutes for rehabilitation and resettlement of those affected by the acquisition of land under the Act.
Schutter raised another issue, which was time and again raised by the West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, that is the development aspect. He noted, transactions could be opportunities for development, with the potential for creating infrastructure and employment, increasing public revenues and improving farmers’ access to technologies and credit. At the same time he cautioned that, this also has negative effects on the right to food as well as other human rights. Then what is the solution? According to the UN official, “From a human rights perspective, the negotiations leading to investment agreements should be conducted in full transparency and with the participation of the local communities whose access to land and other productive resources may be affected as a result of the arrival of an investor. Any shifts in land use should in principle be made with the free, prior and informed consent of the local communities concerned. Other measures included arrangements in investment contracts that obliged foreign investors to provide farmers with access to credit and improved technologies, and the establishment and promotion of farming systems that are labour intensive. A multi-lateral approach could avoid beggar-thy-neighbour policies, with countries competing against each other for the arrival of foreign direct investment and thus lowering the requirements imposed on foreign investors.”
In India the two words -land acquisition-open the floodgate of controversy. Schutter’s view illustrates that, India is not the only country which is trying to forge a balance between the investors, private property rights and public purpose. It is a worldwide phenomenon and the debate is on in other countries as well.
For New Delhi, the question remains, whether the two pending amendments will solve the problem? One view is that, projects that will have restricted access or less widespread direct public benefits should require an overwhelming approval from the landowners and surrounding areas. This creates a kind of weighted public-interest test. A recent bill in Utah, for example, requires two-thirds of the city redevelopment authority boards and 80 per cent of people who live in proposed redevelopment project areas to sign a petition saying they want the land to be acquired under eminent domain.
Ideally there should be a balance between land acquisition and development and establishing new industries. The first and foremost thing is to have a complete data of lands, the fertile, not so fertile and barren lands. The debate is with acquiring most fertile and fertile lands and the proper compensation.
There should be a balance between maintaining social cohesiveness and undertaking land acquisition. These two have equal importance. Land acquisition will remain a challenge for the government. It will continue to be a debate between those who lose their land and those who do not.
There cannot be a watertight optimum solution but a strict process can perhaps stop the abuses—that of the moneyed buying up the poor or not so rich and turn them into paupers.
The reasons given by the UN official is quite similar to those given by the Indian environmentalists, human rights activists and political leaders. Shutter’s argument is based on the fact that the eviction of people who have informally cultivated the land for decades, the loss of access to land for indigenous peoples and pastoral populations, and increased competition for water resources are some of the potential detrimental impacts.
Schutter—who reports to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in an independent, unpaid capacity stressed that land not only represents the principal means to access and procure food for millions, it is also critical to the identity of certain people and communities.
In the Indian context, farmers are emotionally and psychologically attached to land. It is not only the only means to earn their livelihood, but psychologically the attachment is beyond any form of calculation. They are attached to it through generations. Forcibly taking land from the farmers is the worst possible crime against those who lose the ownership rights.This, the Left Front government in West Bengal has realised. The struggle in Nandigram and Singur has changed the whole land acquisition scenario in India.
Central government has also succumbed to the pressure to amend the century old law. On the penultimate day of the fourteenth Lok Sabha, the then rural development minister Raghubansh Prasad Singh was able to pass two very important bills, the land acquisition amendment bill, 2007 and rehabilitation and resettlement bill, 2007. Although the twin bills were passed in the absence of the NDA members and amid protests by the Left, Singh termed the bills historic in protecting the interests of the farmers and tribals.
“These bills will protect the interests of the poor farmers whose land is acquired for setting up industries. This is a historic step,” Singh remarked in the Lok Sabha.
But his joy was short lived as in the very next day, which happened to be the last day of the Rajya Sabha session, the entire opposition protested and Raghubansh failed to pass those very important amendments in the upper house. The amendments were framed after a prolonged debate in both in the cabinet and in the standing committee headed by Kalyan Singh, then a BJP leader. Facing opposition from both the BJP and the Left, he ultimately succumbed to the pressure and was left with no other choice but to retreat. Though the Left parties supported the Bills, they criticised the Government for introducing them in a hurry and setting aside some important and unanimous recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
CPI(M) members wanted to know whether the Government’s proposed rehabilitation package would cover the farmers who had sold their land directly to private developers. The Left members created uproar over the minister’s response that the Government could not take the responsibility of those farmers who had willingly sold their land claiming that this would give rise to “dalal raaj” (reign of middlemen).
During the current budget session UPA Government will once again try to pass the bill in the Rajya Sabha. If the amendments come into force, the whole land acquisition scenario will change. Then the private company has to acquire at least 70 per cent of the land required for the project paying a hefty amount, which is 50 per cent more than the market rate prevailing in the area. Government can procure land for private purposes, but that purpose is clearly defined in the bill.
More often than not, such acquisition of land leads to displacement of people, depriving them of their livelihood and shelter, restricting access to their traditional resource base, and uprooting them from their socio-cultural environment. These have traumatic, psychological and socio-cultural consequences for the affected population, which call for protecting their rights, including those of the weaker sections of society, particularly tribals, tenants, etc. Rehabilitation and resettlement of the persons and families affected by involuntary acquisition of private land and immovable property is of paramount importance. No government, in a democracy in particular, can wink at the need to extend the provisions of the extant policies or statutes for rehabilitation and resettlement of those affected by the acquisition of land under the Act.
Schutter raised another issue, which was time and again raised by the West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, that is the development aspect. He noted, transactions could be opportunities for development, with the potential for creating infrastructure and employment, increasing public revenues and improving farmers’ access to technologies and credit. At the same time he cautioned that, this also has negative effects on the right to food as well as other human rights. Then what is the solution? According to the UN official, “From a human rights perspective, the negotiations leading to investment agreements should be conducted in full transparency and with the participation of the local communities whose access to land and other productive resources may be affected as a result of the arrival of an investor. Any shifts in land use should in principle be made with the free, prior and informed consent of the local communities concerned. Other measures included arrangements in investment contracts that obliged foreign investors to provide farmers with access to credit and improved technologies, and the establishment and promotion of farming systems that are labour intensive. A multi-lateral approach could avoid beggar-thy-neighbour policies, with countries competing against each other for the arrival of foreign direct investment and thus lowering the requirements imposed on foreign investors.”
In India the two words -land acquisition-open the floodgate of controversy. Schutter’s view illustrates that, India is not the only country which is trying to forge a balance between the investors, private property rights and public purpose. It is a worldwide phenomenon and the debate is on in other countries as well.
For New Delhi, the question remains, whether the two pending amendments will solve the problem? One view is that, projects that will have restricted access or less widespread direct public benefits should require an overwhelming approval from the landowners and surrounding areas. This creates a kind of weighted public-interest test. A recent bill in Utah, for example, requires two-thirds of the city redevelopment authority boards and 80 per cent of people who live in proposed redevelopment project areas to sign a petition saying they want the land to be acquired under eminent domain.
Ideally there should be a balance between land acquisition and development and establishing new industries. The first and foremost thing is to have a complete data of lands, the fertile, not so fertile and barren lands. The debate is with acquiring most fertile and fertile lands and the proper compensation.
There should be a balance between maintaining social cohesiveness and undertaking land acquisition. These two have equal importance. Land acquisition will remain a challenge for the government. It will continue to be a debate between those who lose their land and those who do not.
There cannot be a watertight optimum solution but a strict process can perhaps stop the abuses—that of the moneyed buying up the poor or not so rich and turn them into paupers.
Next Story
