{"id":1344,"date":"2015-02-25T07:43:16","date_gmt":"2015-02-25T07:43:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/2015\/02\/25\/emotional-or-pragmatic-2\/"},"modified":"2024-10-12T19:47:07","modified_gmt":"2024-10-12T19:47:07","slug":"emotional-or-pragmatic-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/developmentdebate.in\/?p=1344","title":{"rendered":"Emotional or Pragmatic!"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n<\/p>\n
Why people do not want to give up land (despite wanting to
\nquit farming)?<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
Nesar Ahmad <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
The question of land is not emotional one as suggested by some
\neconomists who try to make the case for easy land acquisition. They suggest
\nthat the land is required for industrial and infrastructural development and if
\nthere is a tougher land acquisition act it will constrain the development and
\nhinder progress of the country. They also say that many many more people are
\nstuck in the unproductive and low paying agriculture sector (which is factually
\ntrue) and its keeping them poor and backward. \u00a0<\/span>Therefore, thus the argument goes, it is necessary
\nto take the land from the people, even without their consent, for the
\ndevelopment of industry and infrastructure, which will also help the poor people
\ndependent on agriculture by moving them out of agriculture. All these arguments
\nhave been summarized here
\nby R Jagannathan<\/a>, a votary of free market economic policies and an ardent
\nsupporter of the Prime Minister Modi and his so called Modinomics. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
However, the land question is far from emotional. It is a
\nknown fact now that a vast
\nmajority of farmers want to quit farming<\/a> as farming is hardly economically
\nviable. The crisis in agriculture has taken form of catastrophe in the last 2
\nand half decades, forcing thousands of farmers to commit suicide year after year<\/a>.
\nStill if the farmers remain in farming there must be some reasons which are far
\nstronger than emotional. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The Census 2011 data reveal that actually the share of cultivators
\nin total working population has gone down in the last decade (from 31.7% in
\n2001 to 24.9% in 2011) but the share of total workers engaged in agriculture
\nhas come down only by 3.3 percent (from 58.2% in 2001 to 54.9% in 2001). Instead
\nwhat has happened is the cultivators have become now agriculture workers. The
\nshare of agriculture workers in total working population has increased from 26.5%
\nin 2001 to 30% in 2011.\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Not only has this, the vast tracts of agricultural land has also
\nbeen transferred to non-agriculture uses in last decade. According to a
\ngovernment committee on land reforms more than 2.1 million
\nhectares of agricultural land has been transferred to non-agricultural purposes
\nduring 1990-2003. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
So why are the people not coming out of agriculture? The
\nanswer is simple because the other two sectors i.e. industry and service sectors
\nare not able to absorb more people in spite of the growth in their share in
\nthe total economy. The share of agriculture and allied sectors in the GDP of
\nthe country has declined from 23.2% in 1999-2000 to about 13.9% in 2013-14. At
\nthe same time share of non-agriculture sectors have grown to more than 85% (Economic Survey 2013-14<\/a>).
\nThis structural change in the economy is much deeper if we compare the
\ncontributions of various sectors in GDP in the decades and 1950s and 1960s and
\nnow. Yet the non-agriculture sectors provide employment to less than 50% of the
\nworkforce. The best available estimate puts the share of employment in non-agriculture
\nsectors at 51.2% in 2011-12 (based on NSSO data, cited in the Economic Survey 2013-14<\/a>).
\nThe service sector, which share in the GDP is 59.9%, provides employment to only
\n26.9% of the working population. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
Additionally, whatever non-farm employment opportunity are
\navailable for most of the poor illiterate, semiliterate or less educated workers
\nare of low paid jobs, in unorganised and informal sectors, without any job
\nsecurity or workplace facilities, safety measures and social security. In order
\nto get access to those jobs, people are forced to live in urban slums, in small
\nrooms, without basic amenities like clean and safe drinking water, sanitation
\nand health and education services. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
Obviously the poor farmers know that once their land is gone
\nthere is hardly any employment opportunity available for them in
\nnon-agriculture sectors and whatever employment is available is of extremely bad
\nquality. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
As far as the ease of land acquisition and availability of land is concerned, till
\n2013 the country had, the Land Acquisition Act 1894 which was enacted by the
\ncolonial rulers and gave unlimited powers to the governments to acquire any
\nlands in the name of public purpose. Besides this there are many other central
\nand state government acts which make land acquisition very easy for the state
\ngovernments. There is no need for the governments to even inform the land owners
\nbefore acquiring their land, let alone taking their consent. These land acquisition
\nacts do not make any legal provision of either the study of social impact
\nassessment of projects or the rehabilitation and resettlement of the people
\nwhose lands are being acquired. The impact of involuntary and forcible land acquisition
\nand displacement caused by the development projects have been disastrous for
\nthe affected people and have been documented very well by many social
\nscientists. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
Still in spite of having such a favorable land acquisition
\nregime so far the record of economic development in the country has been far
\nfrom the satisfactory even for the growth hungry, pro-free market ideologues and
\nthe corporate sectors. \u00a0<\/span>So far the
\ncorporate sector and government owned PSUs have had almost free availability of
\nland they needed for their projects by just giving a minimal compensation and without
\nany burden of rehabilitation and resettlement. Not only this, the country has
\nalso adopted the regime of largely liberal and free market economic policy
\nduring the last two and half decades. Yet the corporate sector wants to continue
\nwith taking the land of the poor farmers with the help of government might and
\nalmost free of cost without being bothered about the social impact of their
\nprojects and without bothering about the food security of the country. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
The 2013 Act, which is disliked so much by the corporate and
\nthe central and state governments, for the first time provided legal guarantee
\nfor the social impact assessment of the projects and rehabilitation and
\nresettlement of people losing their land as well people losing their livelihoods
\ndue to the development projects. It also, for the first time provided for a
\nconsent clause, for the land being acquired for private sector and
\npublic-private-partnership projects. The LARR Act of 2013, though is not perfect,
\nit has provisions which are quite pro-people. However, the most important
\nlacuna of this act is, it has provision of exemption from all the important clauses
\nof this law (like SIA, necessary consent in case of private and PPP projects,
\nnon-acquisition of multi crop land, special provisions for scheduled areas
\netc.) when the land is being acquired under 13 other central government acts. However,
\nthe other provisions like increased compensation and mandatory rehabilitation and
\nresettlement are to be applied in all cases of land acquisition. Though, issue
\nof the increased compensation has also been left to the state government. <\/span><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span>
\nThe Ordinance, which the Modi government wants
\nto shove down the throat of people of this country, has given exemptions to
\nfive types of projects, even when the land is being acquired under this new Act
\nof 2013. That means that effectively the new features of the 2013 Act will
\ntotally be gone. At a time when taking free prior and informed consent of the
\nland owners and social impact assessment of development projects is becoming a
\nglobal norm, the Modi government wants to move backwards to please the national
\nand foreign multinationals at the cost of the only source of livelihood available
\nto the millions of poor people of this country. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n