The UPA regime will have to reconcile human rights and environmental issues with the compulsions of development
The Congress-led UPA Government's schizoid character is fully in display. At one extreme, succumbing to pressure exerted by market forces that set the reforms agenda, it has resumed the divestment exercise and allowed oil companies to hike diesel prices every month. The proposal to allow entry of foreign players into multi-brand retail may have been stymied by key socialist allies and Opposition parties, but it is not the end of the story. At the other extreme, the socialist cabal within the ruling regime continues to nurture vote banks by fine detailing the proposed Food Security Act as the panacea for widespread hunger, with 67 per cent of the population entitled to subsidised grains under the public distribution system. It will impose an additional `23,000 crore as food subsidy at current prices. The initiative has been pushed by the Right to Food campaign.
Extending such state munificence further, the UPA is framing its own take on West Bengal's Operation Barga, land distribution to share-croppers. This was one of the major successes of the Communist Government in the State. The new scheme entails providing land, about 4,356 sq ft, free to rural homeless families, enough to build a house and source supplementary livelihood. The draft Bill, perhaps titled Right to Homestead Bill 2013, and prepared by the task force on land reform, headed by Union Minister for Rural Development Jairam Ramesh, may be introduced in the Monsoon Session of Parliament. The Ekta Parishad march last October, in support of land rights for the landless, reportedly spurred drafting of the legislation. Parishad founder PV Rajagopal is a member of the task force.
The moot point is how policy-makers intend to reconcile socialist aims with capitalist operations. land acquisition sprees, integral to the ambitious high growth agenda, have divested lakhs of people of their ancestral homesteads and land, whether for building dams and roads, setting up industries or constructing townships. Further, the onus would rest on states to implement the law since land is a state subject.
The National Investment Board, headed by the Prime Minister, is meant to fast-track mega projects that have been held up because they require land clearance in contravention of environmental rules, the Forest Rights Act, Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and the like, as well as security considerations. It is also likely to override some provisos of the new land acquisition law, which is yet to get the consent of various parties. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011, is seen to have the backing of Congress president Sonia Gandhi and scion Rahul Gandhi. If passed, it will replace the archaic land Acquisition Act 1894. However, many objections have been voiced since the issue at stake is acquisition of land, a priceless resource in the present age. The standoff between opponents and corporates over land acquisition for industrial purposes at Nandigram and Singur in West Bengal — with Trinamool Congress emerging as the winner, to the Communists' detriment — demonstrates the potential of land conflicts to turn around political fortunes.
Diverse parties have their own views on the draft Bill. Congress ally Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav does not want multi-crop land to be converted to industrial use. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the dominant component of the Opposition NDA, is reportedly of the same opinion. JD(U) stalwart Sharad Yadav wants industrial land to be taken back if it lies unused for two years. The draft provison is that such land shall be taken back if used for five years. Mr Basudeb Acharya of the CPI(M) wants all people affected by projects to be given 200 days' work. Compensation for land that is acquired should be six times higher than the existing rate. Incorporating all pro-displaced people suggestions may serve to impede the land acquisition process for industrial purposes.
The UPA needs to reconcile human rights and environmental issues with the compulsions of development. In the Indian context, encashing land and the real-estate boom have been primary drivers of growth. A new law governing land acquisition and compensation for the dispossessed is long overdue. This is especially because Governments, acting as facilitators for private companies, have been faulted for acquiring land under the public purpose clause, but handing it over much below the market value to favoured realtors and companies. The Bill being unacceptable to many parties in its present form, more fine detailing is required.
Civil society interventions in framing State policies may be good if their aim is protecting livelihoods and ensuring access to basic necessities by the economically weak sections. Their initiatives would be more effective if the intended beneficiaries become not passive recipients of charity but active participants in this exercise. True empowerment vests not just in showering largesse. The UPA's flagship schemes, hinging on free housing/land for select groups, heavily subsidised rations and direct cash transfers in lieu of some subsidies seem to be motivated by electoral reasons.