Opinion Costing the earth
The state has always shortchanged farmers when it comes to paying for land. Now,they want what the market can give....
In the week that farmers around Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh went on the rampage,villagers in the heart of the Naxalite-affected Jagdalpur region in Chhattisgarh finally handed over all the land NMDC needs to build its steel plant. No violence accompanied that handover,instead,there was a possibility of the Naxals moving against the villagers who sold their land to the public sector company. Both cases are fit examples of the inroads that market-based pricing of resources has made into the psyche of those often considered immune to these forces.
So why should we be alarmed when a farmer in UP,using the same logic,protests the perceived lower price for his land? Instead,if one remembers the way almost the same set of UP farmers won another price war less than a year ago,it is obvious that they now know what they are capable of demanding. It is that knowledge which they have put to action.
In other words,the farmers of western UP have demonstrated they are as adept as any savvy businessman in demanding a price that is in sync with what the market can support. Note,this is not the same as the demand for a fair price. They have demanded a price,rather,bargained for a price that they believe the market can afford to pay.
To recapitulate,earlier this year sugarcane farmers of the region demanded a price that was more than twice what the mills were initially willing to pay. When the mills refused,the farmers withheld supply of sugarcane. The price they demanded was far more than the common minimum price set by the Central government for sugarcane and also higher than that offered by the UP state government. But the farmers held out for a higher price. It was finally resolved in favour of the farmers,albeit after some arson.
Months later,an almost similar pattern is being played out. The unnecessarily heavy-handed treatment by the police has grabbed the headlines,converting the matter into a trouble instead of bringing out the basic disagreement. You can argue that a piece of land abutting a planned expressway near Aligarh cannot command the same price as a land parcel in Noida. It is a question of opinion. The more exciting prospect is the attitude of the farmers towards their land. In a way it recalls the Hernando de Soto hypothesis,which argues for giving all squatters ownership of their plots of land,to co-opt them into the market economy with bargaining power.
The squabble in UP and the willingness of farmers in Chhattisgarh to sell their land is the same picture,viewed differently. One has to remember that the deal in Jagdalpur was tougher. The villagers were made to sit out for several years before they could monetise their holdings.
This is far removed from the standard debate on development and its merits,led by groups that miss no opportunity to agitate.The farmers are,rather,bringing into the limelight questions that the Indian state is unwilling to address. Land has a price and the price must be set by the forces of demand and supply. There is no way the government or any commercial interest can afford to price land in a densely populated country at a concessional rate. The term itself is an oxymoron. Subsequent to the disturbances,there have been reports in The Financial Express that three other projects,including an airport plan in Kushinagar,is in trouble over the price paid for the land.
Since Independence and even before,the Indian government has shortchanged the farmers right to earn a decent value from land. This did not create more than a suppressed resentment as long as the state procured the land to feed only the public sector. In fact,there was no alternative for the farmers as the state was both buyer and arbitrator,so an appeal was useless.
Now,the picture has changed. Every possible sort of enterprise is now in the fray to buy land for all sorts of projects. In such a demand-heavy market,it is only fair that the supply price also be set freely. This has not happened so far. If that mechanism comes into place instead of state-controlled pricing,the land holders will not cry foul,as they will realise that the process is transparent.
But the bill to replace the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 shows no sign of a quick passage through Parliament,as it has been needlessly tied to the relief and rehabilitation policy. The latter can wait till the political parties make up their mind. By stonewalling on the changes,the state has ended up supporting industry instead of the farmers. Industry has often argued it needs the support of the state governments to buy land pieces from the farmers,but that is a euphemism to buy cheap. A direct negotiation is sometimes more time-consuming,but transparent. That is what needs to be promoted.
The writer is Resident Editor,Delhi,The Financial Express
subhomoy.bhattacharjee@expressindia.com
Share
