New Land Bill in Farmer Interest

Brig R S Chhikara

Opposition parties especially the Congress, Janta Dal United and communists have raised a lot of hue and cry on the so called demerits of the Land Acquisition Bill calling it anti farmer and pro corporate. Their war cry against the bill centers primarily on the perceived removal of the consent clause. This when Congress ruled state  governments have  themselves declared that provision as a major road block in the way of infrastructure, industrial, agricultural and social development. This also, when the Modi government has already agreed to several amendments to the original text and declared its willingness to discuss and if necessary, amend its provisions further.

Seen in this context it appears that opposition to the bill is being pursued simply for the sake of opposition to anything proposed by the new political dispensation.  It is a case of the opposition ganging up to thwart or at least delay any and all reforms which may help the government towards actualization of the promised Achchhe Din. The fight is basically for their own political survival.  There is little informed discussion on the needs and priorities of rural India itself. ‘ Anti farmer ‘ is a mere cliché bandied about by the opposition which is determined not to discuss the issues on merit.

All studies and surveys in the past have clearly brought out that rural economy is inherently a deficient economy because income of the farmer or for that matter of the landless labourer or artisan in villages, from agriculture and agriculture related activities, is insufficient for their food, health, education and social needs. The author had himself carried out such a survey some time ago.

The reasons for ever increasing rural ( agricultural ) poverty are basically two; First- Land holdings have dwindled due to increase in population and nuclearization of  families. A household holding say, five acres of cultivable land at the time of independence has today, three generations down the line, come to hold a postage stamp sized plot of one – two bighas ( about one part in 15 of the earlier holding ). This limited land holding does not ensure full employment for even one person. It does not even provide enough fodder for more than one milch animal for incremental household income. Enhanced productivity with better seeds and fertilizers has not compensated proportionately. Second- Inflation has resulted in further devaluation of the family income. Vagaries of climate further vitiate the plight of those who depend on agriculture as the sole avenue of income.

Only such families as have sent sons and daughters into urban or rurban whit/ blue collar employment have managed to make both ends meet. This is the reason why  rural poor have migrated to urban slums in states where such avenues are available nearby – like in Uttrakhand, Western UP, Haryana and Rajasthan. This is also the reason for mass migration from Bengal, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Eastern UP and Maharashtra to industrial and commercial centres like Mumbai and Delhi. The only ones managing to survive with a modicum of dignity in villages are the share croppers who cultivate land on behalf of several marginal land owners.

Enhancement of support prices for agricultural produce have severe limitations due to inflation and increased cost of living especially for industrial and commercial workers in rurban/urban centres of employment. Government subsidy on food products has its own ill effects on fiscal budgeting. Unchecked and haphazard exodus to cities leads to creation of urban slums and unbearable burden on urban infrastructure. The migrants are compelled to live in inhuman conditions with high cost of living making savings impossible. Where meager land holdings fail to employ the work force the only reasonable way out is to provide employment avenues in industrial and commercial activity.

Efforts to enhance rural employment through make in India schemes will succeed only when viability for industrial units is ensured. The answer really lies in taking industrial and commercial activity to the rural heartland- ‘ Make in Rural India’. This may be achieved by transferring production of low technology items like processing grains and pulses back to villages and by setting up dispersed production centres for garments and leather goods etc under the Manchester Model.

The other way is to establish industrial centres in the rural heart land where skill training and industrial jobs can be made available to local labour within reasonable distance from their homes. Rural education hardly produces employable work force. Land will also  be required for setting up facilities for skill training, transportation infrastructure, medical facilities, sanitation  and drinking water besides irrigation channels for agriculture and healthy water bodies for animal husbandry. How will these facilities come to be unless land is available.

These imperatives are well understood by the kisan and he is happy to part with his land at enhanced prices as that gives him the option to a better and safer existence. What is coming in the way of the proposed bill is not the Kisan nor the concent clause but political propaganda against it. Most of our politicians have no real connect with either the farmer or the landless rural labour. They certainly do not have any genuine interest in the long term well being of rural India. Their only interest lies in misguiding and exploiting the rural folk for their political ends.

Rural India will decide wisely as wisdom is one commodity they possess in ample measure. The new bill needs to be passed in the interest of the rural folk as much as in overall national interest.

The author has deep and abiding interest in rural poverty alleviation through constant interaction with the village folk.