Land Bill: BJP’s opposition at home

* REINTRODUCTION of consent clause. Consent of 70 per cent of farmers if land is acquired for public purpose, and 80 per cent if land is acquired for the private sector, should be mandatory.
* ASSESSMENT of the social impact of land acquisition.
* BAN ON the acquisition of multi-crop, irrigated land.
* RETENTION of Section 24 (2) [pertaining to the retrospective clause] as per earlier law.

‘Private CoMPANY’ WAS unjust, ‘entity’ is even more so
Use of the term ‘private company’ in the earlier Bill was bad enough, but replacing it with the term ‘private entity’ through the Ordinance was entirely unjust, according to the BMS, since it gives the idea that the government can acquire land for anybody — betraying farmers and potentially threatening the country’s food security.

On the question of ‘affordable housing’
Criticised the exemption of land acquisition for “affordable housing” for the poor from the consent and SIA requirements; has asked if it is indeed necessary to “acquire land for the poor, from the poor”. Has also complained that terms like “affordable housing” and “industrial corridors” have not been adequately defined in the Bill.

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh
Affiliated to the RSS
In Representation of June 3, it demanded…

* IN ANY land acquisition, consent of at least 51% of landowners should be obtained.
* FUNDAMENTAL structure of rural areas should be clearly defined.
* LAW MUST ensure that private companies do not in any way interfere with the fundamental structure of villages.
* A SYSTEM to ensure immediate compensation to farmers when their land is acquired.

Akhil Bhartiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram
Affiliated to the RSS
In its representation of June 4, it…

* CLAIMED that the proposed amendments were going to affect the Scheduled Tribes equally, “with no exception”.
* QUESTIONED the purpose of replacing ‘private company’ with ‘private entity’, and demanded that it be stated clearly in Parliament.
* CRITICISED the “softening and thereby denying benefits of the Act with retrospective effect to the land owners”, calling it an “unwarranted” step that needed “retreat”.
* CALLED for making provisions of Section 10A (1) [related to the list of projects exempted from consent, SIA requirements] more “transparent, democratic and participatory”, and for devising an alternative to SIA that could be less time consuming, but democratic.
* ALLEGED that the government did not hold consultations with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, which it says is “obligatory” for the government.

K N Govindacharya
RSS ideologue
In representation dated June 13…

* SUBMITTED, “Most of the pro-farmers provisions in that Act (2013) had been included with efforts of MPs of the then main opposition party BJP. However, nobody thought that when the BJP forms the government at the Centre, it will overturn this law”.
* ARGUED that message that has now gone out is that this government is amending the law in favour of “domestic and foreign industrialists and the wealthy”, instead of for the benefit of the common man and farmers. Has said the government is removing those provisions of the 2013 Act that favoured the deprived and underprivileged.
* ASKED, “Had the BJP made any promise to change the 2013 land law in its election manifesto? If not, then what mentality does it denote to change it in a haste by bringing an Ordinance?”
* DEMANDED that no land acquisition should happen without the “written consent” of Gram Sabha, commissions should be set up at the Centre and states to carry out SIA studies, there should be “land for land” as compensation, and the provision allowing land acquisition for industrial corridors should be defined more clearly — with stringent punishment for defaulting government officials.
* ASKED that the term ‘private company’ be restored as in the 2013 law, because the new expression, ‘private entity’, is “completely unclear”