AGRICULTURE AND LAND RIGHT:
Introductory remarks
Alex
Tuscano
Land
Right:
=Respect
for land rights is essential to sustainable development. Land is central to
people’s identity, livelihood and food security. International standards and
frameworks are abundantly available.
Yet
time and again the human rights of the people who own or use land are violated
due to policies and practices relating to its improper use and acquisition.
Sub-Saharan countries are a poignant example.
For
the past decade, foreign investors have been looking for greener pastures in
Africa. Some foreign governments and private enterprises acquire long-term
leases of large portions of arable land as part of efforts to secure sufficient
food and energy for their home populations. Such actions could be explained in
human rights terms. This is not the case, however, if foreign governments are
acquiring land only with a view to trade in international markets.
Most
of the poor share three traits: they live in rural areas, rely on agricultural
labour to survive, but don’t own the land they till.
Immediately
after independence there was only one official slogan ringing throughout the
country. It was “Jai Jawan Jai Kisan!” The Jawans had just fought the first war with
Pakistan to protect Kashmir. And the
nation that was predominantly agrarian needed Kisan to produce for the people. But it was also admitted that this Kisan who
fed their countrymen was himself lived a miserable life.
After
independence Jawaharlal Nehru announced land reform as the immediate task
before the nation.
Since
then till today a lot of water has run down the bridge. In India we saw two centres of power. At the rural and state level the landlords
dominated the economic and political power and at the centre the Industrial
capitalists were trying to push themselves forward.
THE CONDITION OF FARMERS OF INDIA:
Extensive
Indebtedness
· The findings of NSSO 59th round (2005)
clearly shows that 48.6 per cent of the farmers are indebted, and have incurred
significant liabilities.
·
The estimated prevalence of
indebtedness among farmers was seen to be highest in Andhra Pradesh (82 per
cent) and lowest in Uttaranchal (less than 10 per cent).
·
More than 50 per cent of the farmers
have availed loans for capital or to meet current expenditures for farming
purposes.
·
58 per cent of borrowing accrues to
cultivation and other agricultural activities while the remaining percentage
suffices to meet other consumption needs.
·
Out of the estimated 43.4 million
indebted farmer households, 6.9 million indebted households are from Uttar
Pradesh, whereas 4.9 million are from Andhra Pradesh. Maharashtra follows close
with 3.6 million farmers and West Bengal is not far behind with 3.5 million.
·
The highest proportion of indebted
farmers belongs to the other backward castes (OBC) category with 41.5 per cent,
followed by the scheduled castes (SCs) with 18 per cent. Indebtedness and
distress are quite significant among the scheduled caste farmers. It needs no
emphasis that it hurts them more than those belonging to other castes. As a
result, landlessness among scheduled castes and marginalisation of their
holdings has been increasing in recent years.
·
The largest percentage of indebted farmers
is located in the size class of 0.01 to 1 hectare. More than 70 per cent of
farmers who own less than two hectares are in the indebted category. The
average amount of loans outstanding is Rs 12,585.
Banks function differently for Industry and agriculture:
·
Non availability of banks.
·
No link of agricultural production to
banking.
·
No advance on stocks.
·
No facility of over draft on current
account. Bank money is available only to
industry.
·
Market for agriculture not organized
to link with bank credit or over draft.
Insignificant growth in Agriculture:
·
However, all through the 1990s, farm
business income showed insignificant growth.
·
grew at 1.02 per cent per annum during
1990-91 to 1999-2000
·
as against 3.21 per cent during
1983-84 to 1990-91 [Sen and Bhatia 2004: 241].
Far from Safety
Nets:
It is
evident that about one-third of farmers did not really like farming; because it
is not a profitable activity and 40 per cent of farmers are even ready to give
up farming provided they could secure some other job [NSSO 2005b]. In sum,
almost 70 per cent of the farmers are frustrated with their profession.
Technology
The farmer
does not get sufficient information from the extension worker, but it is rather
the progressive farmer, who provides information to the farmer and this
constitutes the best source as acknowledged by the farming community
A general survey of land reform policy
and programmes in India up to mid-sixties, therefore, suggests that:
(1) The social motivation for agrarian
policy in India was provided by the contending pressures of the erstwhile
semi-feudal landlords on the one hand and the emerging class of medium
landowners and superior tenants on the other.
(2) Within this common frame, the
regional variations in India were determined by the relatively greater pull of
the old landed class in the eastern region and of the upper layer of the
peasantry in the north-west and the western regions.
(3) In both types of regions the rural
poor were neither articulate nor organised at the political level to exercise
influence on the land reform policy and programme in their favour either at the
stage of legislation or of implementation.
(4) The impact of land reform was
positive for the intermediate classes which were upgraded and pushed into a
position of prominence both in the land and power structure. On the other hand,
the impact was by and large negative for the rural poor. It was mainly
instrumental in disturbing the old framework within which the rural poor had
some security without creating for them alternative forms of security.
Colonial Land Acquisition Act:
Along with the
failure of land reform there was a colonial ‘Land Acquisition Act 1894’ which
was used for the colonial powers and subsequent Indian governments against the
interests of the farmers.
In its 117 years
of existence, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (LAA 1894) has influenced the expansion
of the power of the State to acquire and take over land. It has helped
institutionalise involuntary acquisition. Premised on the doctrine of eminent
domain, it presumes a priority to the requirements of the State which, by
definition, is for the general good of the public, over the interests of
landowners and users.
In 1984, when the LAA 1894 went through
elaborate amendment, the role that the State had taken on in acquiring land for
companies was reinforced. The neo-liberal agenda, or the reforms agenda as some
term it, forged a partnership between the state and companies.
Where it guarantees certain conditions and
terms that would make projects friction free while guaranteeing profits; as
agents in procuring land and providing clearances; as disinvestors, through
which process the transfer of assets would occur.
In 1984, the
Statement of Objects and Reasons (SoR) of the Amendment Act referred to the
“sacrifices” of the affected population. “The individuals and institutions who
are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be
adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to
make for the larger interests of the community”,
A model of
development that requires extraordinary sacrifices, that is ecologically and
in socio-economic terms of questionable repute and which is linked with such
phenomena as marginalisation, exclusion and impoverishment has not been able to
cross the credibility barrier to convince those who are sometimes referred to
as “victims of development”. Macroeconomic projections of growth and prosperity
have not succeeded in convincing the project affected that their sacrifice has
value that they must respect;
The decades since the development
project got underway in the 1950s has caused “development-induced displacement”.
It was not till February 2004 that a
National Policy on Resettlement and Rehabilitation 2003 was notified, to be
replaced in 2007 by the National Rehabilitation Policy 2006.
A “Foreword” to the draft bill that
Union Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh displayed on the ministry’s
website on 27 July 2011 begins with these words: “Infrastructure across the
country must expand rapidly. Industrialisation, especially based on
manufacture, has also to accelerate. Urbanisation is inevitable. Land is an
essential requirement for all these processes.”
“In every case, land acquisition must
take place in a manner that fully protects the interests of landowners and
also those whose livelihoods depend on the land being acquired”. This sets up a
lexical priority for industry, urbanisation and infrastructure, and introduces
pragmatism into issues of displacement and rehabilitation. This approach runs
through the entire LARR 2011. In the bill introduced in the Lok Sabha, the
preamble uses adjectives such as “humane”, “participatory”, “informed”,
“consultative”, “transparent”, but the juggernaut of “development” is not to be
slowed down; the process of dealing with its wake may be modified.
The attempt to reconcile
conflicting interests has, however, produced some interesting elements. So,
• the idea of “legitimate and bona
fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition which necessitates acquisition
of the land identified” (Clause 8(2)(a));
• that “only the minimum area of
land required for the project” can be sought to be acquired (Clause 8(3));
• that “minimum displacement of
people, minimum disturbance to the infrastructure, ecology and minimum adverse
impact on the individuals affected” should be ensured (Clause 8(3)).
The LAA 1894 was concerned
exclusively with acquisition; it was innocent of the need for rehabilitation.
In 1984, “public purpose”
was redefined to include the provision of land for residential purposes “...to
persons displaced or affected by reason of the implementation of any scheme
undertaken by government...” (Section 3(f)(v)). There was no procedure
prescribed, and no entitlements created. It was among the purposes for which
the state had the power, under the Act, to acquire land.
The notion of the “affected family”
(Clause 3(c)) has been introduced, and this is distinct from the “person
interested” who was, and continues in this bill to be the person entitled to
compensation. “Affected family” includes agricultural labourers, tenants,
sharecroppers, artisans, those working in the affected area for three years prior
to the acquisition, “whose primary source of livelihood stands affected by the
acquisition of land” as also the person who loses land.
Diluting Forest
Rights Act
If the state is itself to be acquiring
the land, then the protection is diminished to that degree. If the state is
legally permitted to acquire the land to be handed over to a private company,
that dilutes the protection further.
The idea of recognising
rights so that they can be monetised and taken over could be viewed as
amounting to a fraud on the tribals and forest dwellers. If land has to be
diverted for the purposes of industry or infrastructure in scheduled areas and
in areas in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, some route other than the coercive
power under the land acquisition law will have to be found.
Change of public purpose –
where acquisition is based on one purpose but it is used for another purpose –
has been among the practices that brought coercive acquisition into disrepute.
It revealed casualness about state
power.
Agriculture and Industry at cross purpose?
There is apparently conflict between
the interests of the industrialists and the land owning agriculturists.
Industry is trying to take away the
space of agriculture.
Industrial capital, essentially the
multinational capital is bringing agriculture under their control, making
farmers’ existence irrelevant.
The corporate are also taking
possession of production, in the form of corporate or contract farming,
procuring the food grains and marketing agricultural products.
India is aiming to be one of the
leading nations in the world along the ranks of most powerful advanced
nations. It boasts of its fastest
growing economy. The profile that is
being slowly sold is that Indian is going to have economy where 80% of which
will be contributed by industry and more than 60 % of the population would be
living in the cities. The planners would
like to have less than 20% of the population living on agriculture.
The policy of the UPA II government
was enumerated recently by Montek Singh Ahlluvalia in his interview with the
NDTV on 25.03.2010.
1. He wants to ensure that the economy is put on
the growth mode of 10% and above. This
would mean more investments, greater exploitation of natural resources and
mineral wealth, foreign investment and creation of more Special economic zones.
2. The second element of the policy is
infrastructure development in the cities, more green field airports, flyovers
and express high ways. To ensure faster
urbanization which would mean that today there are 300 millions living in the
cities; it should reach to 600 million people living in the cities. His
expectation is that within ten to fifteen years the urban population will
increase to 60% and above of the total population of India, 30% population to stay in the rural areas.
3. Reform in education to create space for skill
training for the youth to make them employable in the urban economy.
We shall take one by one to understand
how these points expose the policy of the government with regard to
Agriculture.
A. Creation of more Special Economic Zones,
exploitation of natural resources and minerals, building express high ways and
green field airports have directly impacted on the rural masses, i.e. the
adivasis, the daliths, the peasants and the fisher people. So fare such projects have been implemented
we have seen that the wealth of the middle class, , peasants, daliths, adivasis
the poor and the marginalised people have been taken away from them and passed
on to the hands of the industrialists.
It has resulted in displacement, converting the peasants and self
employed masses into wage labourers.
B. We have been told that the 60% and more people
will live in the cities. It is very
difficult to understand this as the people displaced from the rural
agricultural economy will migrate to the cities in search of jobs. In most of our metros between 25% to 30%
people live in slums and glorified slums.
They are partially employed or unemployed. The power and water supply in all the cities
is dismal. The transport system is
inadequate and in shambles. To these
cities we will see more people, i.e., the double of the people already living
in the cities are going to be added to.
These are not necessarily HSMP category of people but those who have
been displaced from the rural agrarian economy.
C. The government is speaking of giving skill
training to the youth to make them employable.
But the kind of industries emerging in our society does not require semi
skilled or unskilled workers that the skill training is going to generate. This will lead to the frustration among the
so called skill trained youth.
D. Agriculture will be subordinated to industry. This is already happening in several ways –
industrialization of agriculture by promoting technological revolution in
agriculture in the name of increasing productivity. There will be concentration
and centralization of agricultural land.
Multinational companies and corporate like Cargill, Monsanto ITC,
Reliance trying to push their interests by taking control of seeds and fertilizers
and essentially research in agriculture, introducing genetically modified seeds
known as BT technology. who will take over the agriculture of our country. This
process will push the farmers from their control on seeds and method of
agriculture. There will be no place for self employed peasant economy.
E. There
will be contract farming. No wonder the
BT Brinjal controversy has been treated like highly sensitive security issue
where any criticism would be dealt with serious consequences.
F. The food sovereignty will be given a solemn
burial. Food security will be converted
into dole of “25 kg rice per month at the rate Rs. 3.00 only”. There will be very simple social analysis as
there will be a few owning corporate and the rest will be wage labourers in our
country.
To conclude: The government
agricultural policy is neo liberal policy directly taken out of the text books
from Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
Let me quote form David Smick’s book,
“The world is Curved”. By the way David
Smick is the most insightful financial market strategists in the world who for
more than two decades has conferred with central bankers such as Alan Greenspan
and Ben Bernanke and has advised Wall Street Executives.
“To be sure, Clinton advisers, such as
Summers and Sperling, are correct when they argue that the middle class has not
fully enjoyed the benefits of the global wealth machine. In today's financial
system, where the wage-earning sector itself is shrinking, middle-class wages
alone may never be enough to keep families from financially backsliding. This
problem will remain a reality regardless of any government sponsored programs,
including hikes in the minimum wage and targeted educational benefits.
Moreover, the gap between the haves
and have-nots will likely continue to grow if globalization is allowed to
continue. This is because there is an exponential aspect to wealth
creation. And as a result, the entire
economic system becomes poorer with fewer jobs. Moreover, schemes aimed at
aggressive welfare intervention have destroyed people's dignity, robbing them
of any sense of accomplishment.
In the end, the political tensions
created by vastly unequal income distribution will likely be difficult to
measure and predict, and even harder to control. Highly entrepreneurial
economies create big winners and losers. The challenge comes down to how to
dramatically expand society's base of winners. The best way to do that is to
expand the base of the investor class. In fact, bringing more people into the
economy as capital owners may in the long run be the only means politically of
saving globalization.
For the middle class, wages alone are
not enough to prosper in today's new economy.
In recent years, the global economy
has boomed to almost unprecedented levels. Mere wage earners, however, relative
to those with a global stock portfolio, can't participate in this wealth
creation. They are left at a huge disadvantage by having no way to benefit from
worldwide economic growth.
To this extent, I agree with Barack
Obama when he said in March 2008: "The core of our economic success is the
fundamental truth that each American does better when all Americans do better;
that the well-being of American business, its capital markets, and the American
people are aligned."
Here is one astonishing statistic that
makes the point: Today 40 percent of Americans do not have adequate liquid
savings to live at the poverty level for three months, according to New York
University's Edward N. Wolff. For a family of four, living at that level for
that amount of time would require $5,300 in savings.
As is obvious by now, I passionately
believe working-class families want to ride the great financial wave. They want
to be transformed from labour workers into capital owners. They want a real stake
in the entrepreneurial capitalist system, and they are not resentful of the
entrepreneurial success of others so long as the door for wealth creation and
opportunity remains open for all.”
I would like to make one last point
before I conclude. The present growing
nature of world economy is heavily leaning towards war economy as a safety
valve to let out the steam that will be generated by the crisis of over
production and under consumption.
We have seen war and production
weapons have become inherent part of the economy. Earlier we had cold war between the USSR and
USA. This cold war is replaced by a new
cold war between USA and China in an attempt to gain greater control of the
Pacific Ocean. I warn you that this will
trick the countries like India into believing in the need to align with
USA. But the fact remains that USA and
China are so interdependent that they need each other for their existence.