Land ‘Grab’, ‘Acquisition’
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The alleged land grabbing at Sandeshkhali village in West Bengal by a TMC leader continues to hit headlines, but such incidences shouldn’t come as a big surprise as the poor can rattle off cases of their land being unfairly taken either by government or business houses with support of political leaders. It’s a phenomenon across the country oft heard and rather could well even get camouflaged under the term land acquisition.
This case has, however, drawn much more attention unlike others as it’s got entangled in the murky BJP-TMC rivalry and the alleged sexual abuse of the village women, which of course is unacceptable in any civil society. Developments such as Prime Minister Modi referring to the incident innumerable times during his recent visits to the state; a division bench of Calcutta High Court directing the state to file an affidavit stating the plan to restore the farmlands allegedly grabbed and turned into pisciculture ponds; directing the CBI to file an affidavit stating how protection could be given to those who had lodged police complaints against land grabbing and sexual torture, domake news and shall be forgotten later.
The larger picture, of land grab or land acquisition, which has been a phenomenon in the country since the 50s and 60s, simply gets lost. It would not be wrong to recall that even the government has somewhat forcibly taken land from people for various projects like widening of roads and highways, railway projects, power projects etc. And this has been done by paying a paltry sum to the villagers.
At that time, there was no National Rehabilitation Policy, and the government didn’t deem it necessary to rehabilitate them properly so that these poor people could make a living at their new site. The poor were put to great distress,and some even squandered the money received in liquor and died due to untreated diseases like TB. Likewise, there’s the problem of taking away of tribal land and inadequate compensation been given, with suggestions coming that a national mission for effective implementation of FRA be set up so that all claims are sympathetically considered.
Recall, the Tatas took away land from the poor tribals in building the township and the steel plant in Jamshedpur as per various reports to substantiate this. The suffering of those whose land was taken away had been documented as survival continued to haunt them. Insofar as land acquisition is concerned, government could justify it on grounds that it has been taken for essential infrastructure projects, but the question remains who benefits the most from such action. The roads and highways, which are normally 6-lane or even wider, to facilitate faster movement of traffic may indirectly help the greater community but essentially such movement of cars benefit the rich and middle-income sections of society.
It is well-known that the land acquisition laws that India inherited from colonial times were undoubtedly heavily loaded against the interests of landowners and other people dependent on land for their livelihood. The Acts passed have enhanced the scale of compensation to be received by landowners and additionally provided for their rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) in the event of displacement.
In fact, the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act of 2013 diluted most of the ruthless provisions of land acquisition act of 1894 and, most importantly, it made andeliberate attempt to put in place the building block for easy accessibility of land. It included the Act’s fundamental change—the introduction of compulsory prior consent from the farmer for acquiring land. Secondly, the major change in terms of replacing the administrative coercion for land acquisition with market transaction and increased finance to those left without land or livelihood. Thirdly, the Act also provided for a new national wide institutional architecture for rehabilitation and resettlement. Due to these changes, the 2013 Act has been considered as progressive and people-oriented act but only theoretically.
Most states did not think it fit to judiciously enforce the provisions of the Act, as is the case with others. Moreover, with most of the state governments demarcating lands as Special Economic Zones, the problem has been getting worse. In recent years, the Act has been violated and its said farmers have to unwillingly part with their land with very little compensation and a bleak future.
Land acquisition is indeed a sensitive subject and there are reports indicating that people whose land has been virtually taken have not benefitted to the extent they should have. It is critical ry to take stock of how much land has been taken away in the last five decades or so and whether the people, whose land has been taken away, are properly rehabilitated, as per the National Rehabilitation Policy, and earning enough for a decent livelihood for themselves and their family.
Plus, the need to have case studies of land mafias, across states including West Bengal, Jharkhand and Bihar,who takeover land by paying a paltry sum of compensation to further their own business. It is also feared that in majority cases, the people who take away such land have the blessings of the ruling party, and in some others, leaders get a share of such transactions.
Not only should fair and just compensation be given, but culprits who cheat the poor in the process of acquiring land must be brought to book. Experts have rightly sought the need for an independent expert committee to look into the right of the land loser to get fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition as also his consent in the matter. Unfortunately, the Act does not provide clear guidelines for calculation of what could be said ‘fair compensation’. And needs correction, keeping in view the rehabilitation aspect of the land loser. Additionally, there should be judicious resettlement and rehabilitation of the families affected. Failure to comply with these provisions should be viewed strictly and made punishable. Headlines of land grab or action against a solitary case is not a remedy. — INFA