Opinion Do Bigha Zamin

Is The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy still read? In that,Arthur Dent’s house was first acquired to build a bypass. Later,the earth was acquired to build a hyperspace bypass. In some ways,the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is unique. It is opposed by those who support acquisition and conversion of agricultural land. It is also opposed by those who oppose acquisition and conversion of agricultural land. That gives it its unique position,and there must be several things wrong with it. There are problems with definition of “public purpose”,valuation (price paid by executive,market value,market value in future,additional payment of solatium),dilatory procedures,delays in payment of compensation,grievance redressal and issues connected with relocation and resettlement,of both landowners and those who earn a living from land. That’s the reason we have a Land Acquisition Bill and a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill,both from 2007. There were standing committee reports on both and,lest we forget,both have now lapsed,indicative of how seriously we take these issues. Had both bills become law,life wouldn’t have been perfect. But it would have been better than now. How can we continue to have,despite amendments,legislation that is so old?

We now have two development myths floating around as propositions. First,development must not disturb forests and disrupt the lives of tribals. Second,development must not be at the expense of agriculture and agricultural land. Both agriculture and animal husbandry have a fairly long history in India,going back to the Indus Valley Civilisation. Would either have developed had forests not been destroyed? Forests were domesticated to produce agriculture and wild animals were domesticated to produce animal husbandry. The tension isn’t between agriculture and forestry on one side and industry and urbanisation on the other. There are sub-layers within these and development has reconciled these trade-offs in the progress of human civilisation.

Consider the refinement of the second proposition. Development can be at the expense of agricultural land,but it shouldn’t be irrigated land. India has a long tradition of irrigation too and there are parts of India where it will be difficult to find un-irrigated land. Are we saying there should be no acquisition and conversion of agricultural land there?

That seems to be precisely what we are saying,since food security will then become an issue. (It is a separate matter that there should be no food security issues if pending rural sector reforms boost productivity.) But this isn’t a matter of industrialisation and urbanisation alone. If a farmer decides to alter cropping patterns in favour of cotton or floriculture,by the same token,we should ban that too,since food security again becomes a perceived issue. There are parts of the country that have natural resource advantages. These become centres of economic activity,be it for agriculture or industry,or as urban centres. In school,one studies the history of human civilisations. These developed along rivers. Agriculture developed along those rivers. Towns developed along those rivers. Therefore,it is understandable there should be demand for prime land,regardless of use,and less demand for sub-prime land. If one allowed markets to function,that would be reflected in prices. Price for irrigated land will be higher,while that for non-irrigated land will be lower. That’s a far more efficient means of resource allocation than control and rationing. There is an anecdotal conversation between George Bernard Shaw and an actress (this is also attributed to Winston Churchill and Mark Twain),where Shaw says,“Now we are haggling about the price.”

The Kisan Sangharsh Samiti recognises that. As far as one can make out,the agitation isn’t about exercise of eminent domain,but about the price. Most farmers argue agriculture is no longer remunerative and the younger generation has no interest in agriculture. We should then allow the shake-out and consolidation in agriculture,not forcibly seek to retain work-force in agriculture. There is an issue about alternative livelihoods. But contrary to what we often think,that’s more often a skills problem and not a land one. Shambhu of Do Bigha Zamin lost his land to a mill. Had he possessed skills,he would have obtained a job in the mill and would have been better off than on his subsistence-level plot. (If his agricultural pursuits were thriving,why did he have to continually borrow money from the landlord?) He wouldn’t have had to become a rickshaw-puller in Calcutta. Those skills aren’t available with the older generation of farmers,and won’t be,which is why one tries to figure out revenue streams linked to projects,through equity or otherwise. But there is no reason why those skills shouldn’t be available with the younger generation. In rural India,there is thus an inter-generational trade-off too. Unfortunately,Balraj Sahni makes us weep and we think with our hearts,not our brains. Even if the land transaction is voluntary on both sides,we must intervene as political parties. Even if the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of development,we will resort to agitational politics.

The writer is a Delhi-based economist express@expressindia.com