Dispossession of land, which is central to rural livelihood, has a far more entrenched implication than a simple loss of means of production.
10
January - February 2015 Geography and You
[Cover Story]
The New Land Act of 2013 was meant to remove the historic injustice perpetrated on land owners and sought to incorporate those dependent on agricultural land for livelihood. However, proposed amendments to the New Act will undermine its major clauses, and fail to achieve the purpose it was aimed for.
Land and
Livelihood
VILLAGE PUKHRI - DAMMED WATERS of CHAMERA in the background, HIMACHAL
Debating the Land Acquisition Law By Chinmoyee Mallik
Geography and You January - February 2015
11
R
ural livelihoods, whether farm or non-farm, are intricately linked to land, particularly in the developing world. In the global south, specifically in India, land is an emblem of social status and security of households in addition to being a prominent source of livelihood and povertyarresting ingredient (Robin Mearns, 1999, ‘Access to land in rural India: Policy issues and options’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2123). So, dispossession of land, which is central to rural livelihood, has a far more entrenched implication than a simple loss of means of production. But land is also one of the most important inputs of economic development. Thus, there is considerable contention over issues of land acquisition and there is also significant opportunity cost attached to its conversion to other land uses in land scarce economies. When this transfer is from cultivable land or other common land or forests, which have livelihood implications, the issue is extremely complex and demands close deliberation.
Land Acquisition and its Legal Implications
Until recently, land acquisition in India followed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 which had been enacted by the British colonial power to seize private property. Although this Act was amended several times by state governments, the amendments pertained to the elaboration of compensation issues and never addressed the ambiguities within. The new land acquisition act that came into force on January 1, 2014 referred to as ‘The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’ (henceforth referred to as the New Act) is a step forward in sensitively addressing some of the earlier concerns. However, the New Act was dubbed as “anti-industry and anti-development”, by industrialists, as reported by the Hindu Business Line, June 27, 2014. Hence, the pro-liberalization present government is currently bent upon making the land acquisition law “an enabler rather than a stifler”, as opined in The Hindu, in a piece titled ‘Land acquisition will be made easier’, on December 7, 2014, and has promised a virtual roll back of the New Act. The pertinent question, therefore, concerns the efficacy of the 1894 Act and the implications of the New Act and its provisions in dealing with liveli12
January - February 2015 Geography and You
hoods and dispossessed agricultural populations. In this perspective, one would need to examine the proposed amendments to the New Act using insights from various case studies.
Land Acquisition Law: Key Concerns Regarding the 1894 and 2013 Act
The most significant provision of the 1894 land law pertains to the doctrine of eminent domain and the definition of public purpose by which the Government is empowered to take over any private land or property by declaring that there is a public purpose in it. This statute is virtually not challengeable and confers supreme authority to the state to acquire land, leaving the property owner a helpless victim. A related issue centres around the ambiguous definition of ‘public purpose’, which has been imparted considerable interpretive liberty and emerged as draconian. Till date, these two components of the land acquisition law have successfully impoverished a large section of the farming community and those dependent upon land-based livelihoods. This definition has undergone several modifications, the most far reaching being in 1962 and in 1984 which allowed for acquisition of land for private enterprise (in addition to State enterprise) provided a ‘public purpose’ had been proclaimed. The New Act has further widened the scope of ‘public purpose’ by incorporating land acquisition by the government for public-private-partnership (PPP) projects which has furthered avenues for the private sector to have easy access to land, including prime agricultural land. The second contentious issue of the 1894 land law stems from the provision of government acquisition for private company/PPP project. This provision, set against a ‘public purpose’ links it with the seemingly benevolent objectives of the private sector, such as employment generation and gross domestic product (GDP) growth and very deftly overlooks the overt profit maximisation strategies of the private agent and makes land cheaply available. Reasons commonly cited in favour of this mechanism centre around the problems of fragmented land holdings, pending extended litigations over land ownerships, poorly maintained land records and potential for encouraging land sharks and brokers that would put the poor and vulnerable at a disadvantageous position and delay the onset of projects. The New Act has incorporated three major elements: (i) compulsory consent of stake-
The revised definition of ‘affected families’ in the New Act includes ‘livelihood losers’, additional compensation for multiple displacement, extensive R&R package and replacement of lost homestead. holders ratifying the acquisition (70-80 per cent), (ii) comprehensive coverage by rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) even in cases of acquisition by/for private companies, and (iii) mandatory social impact assessment and its evaluation by an independent agency for sanctioning any project. The third key issue of the 1894 Act relates to compensation. It traditionally harps on the principle of ‘money for land’ and is computed on the basis of prevailing market prices in the area for the past three years plus a solatium of 30 per cent. The New Act continues to harp upon the market value principle of compensation notwithstanding criticisms that emphasise the inherent problems of undervaluation of land transaction records, scanty land transaction history in the Indian context in addition to largely distress sale of land at extremely depressed prices. However, the new inclusions show (i) scope of negotiating land prices in case of a private company, (ii) multiplier for market value to be determined by the State and a separate multiplier based on rural/urban location, (iii) a solatium amount of 100 per cent, and (iv) strict time lines for disbursement of compensation. Another element of compensation in the 1894 Act is the ‘propertybased compensation principle’ that overlooked the labourers and dependents on common lands. The revised definition of ‘affected families’ in the New Act includes ‘livelihood losers’, additional compensation for multiple displacement, extensive R&R package in the form of employment guarantees, annuities, company shares, land-for-land, share of appreciated land value after resale, and replacement of lost homestead. All this in the New Act indeed marks a step forward. The New Act reflected the government’s determination to address “widespread and historical injustices”, as suggested by The Hindu, on August
29, 2013 in its report ‘Lok Sabha passess Land bill with 216 ayes’. The provisions laid down in the New Act have addressed most concerns barring a few. Most states, as also the Ministry of Rural Development, have pressed for amending the law as it has made acquisition of land extremely stringent. The Central Government is therefore keen on amending the New Act diluting some crucial provisions which will ultimately mean a “huge step backwards”, as opined by the Economic and Political Weekly Editorial of October 18, 2014.
Proposed Amendments to the New 2013 Act
Firstly, the consent clause (Section 2 (2)) has been proposed to be amended by doing away with it completely in the case of PPP projects as the ownership of land is vested upon the government and to reduce the level of consent to between zero and 50 per cent for other projects. This clause of the New Act had attempted to make acquisitions participatory with social sanction for projects. Amending this will hence mean a roll back to the coercive realm of eminent domain. Secondly, there is a demand for social impact assessment (SIA) to be restricted to ‘large’ projects (‘large’ remaining undefined!). This clause of the New Act is meant to undertake an intense analysis of (i) the potential net gains from the project, and (ii) the validity of the proposed ‘public purpose’. This proposed amendment, if accepted, would obscure the intended transparency of ‘public purpose’. Thirdly, the most welcome addition in the New Act concerning inclusion of ‘affected families’ for rehabilitation meant a leap forward by moving beyond the propertied livelihood losers. This has been exposed to re-examination to keep the process simple and quick. Fourthly, the restriction lain on acquisition of multi-cropped prime agricultural land has also been called for amendment to have access to resource-rich regions. Fifthly, the ‘retrospective clause’ that was meant to check on the timeliness of project implementation and making awards and also on returning unused acquired land to owners will be amended. Sixthly, the ‘urgency clause’ which had mentioned two specific cases for quick and hassle free land acquisition, that is, during war/national security and natural calamity, will include ‘any other emergency’. This amendment intends to impart interpretive liberty to the ‘urgency clause’ and, like the ambiguous definition of ‘public purpose’, would instil ambivalence, thereby empowering agents to define what Geography and You January - February 2015
13
comprises ‘any other emergency’. The proposed amendments hence, if accepted, would simply establish the government’s intent to patronise the private sector and institutionalise insensitivity towards the poor and vulnerable.
Evidence from the Field
Experiences of livelihood transition and gender specific nuances following land dispossession in the fringes of Delhi and Kolkata highlight the role of the land-law in determining transformational change. Livelihood transition of land dispossessed farmers: Examining the trajectory of livelihood transformation of the farmers following land dispossession reveals firstly, the positive role of access to land prior to land dispossession (which imply a ‘bunching of assets’) helping to take advantage of the relatively better opportunities available because of both the latent economic advantage and the related quantity and quality of social capital at one’s disposal. Secondly, the relative disadvantage of small and marginal farmers and the landless in engaging in remunerative spheres of non-farm work owing to lack of skill and assets. Besides, there is rapid erosion 14
January - February 2015 Geography and You
of subsidiary occupations that are not replaced by the emergent economy, thereby making marginal households extremely vulnerable. Livelihood implications for women of land dispossessed farm households: Women in farm households are generally engaged in subsidiary farm work. With land acquisition, most become unemployed. Two major trajectories are observable—firstly, the compensation money allows temporary withdrawal of women from the labour market since intense distress is offset for some time; and secondly, re-entrenchment of the patriarchal norm restricts employment opportunities for women, ultimately excluding them from the economic realm. However, women from small and tenant farming households were found to get engaged in extremely exploitative home-based work, and, at times, in socially stigmatised occupations.
Way Forward
Thus, experiences from the field point to the extreme vulnerability of asset poor farmers and women and the failure of the land law in addressing the issue. The diverging pattern of the nature of occupational shift of the agricultural workers
RUKANNAPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH (L); SRINAGAR, HIMACHAL(R)
Experiences from the field suggested that with land acquisition, women who belonged to farm households and were generally engaged in subsidiary farm work, became unemployed.
The most welcome addition in the New 2013 Act concerning inclusion of ‘affected families’ for rehabilitation meant a leap forward by moving beyond the propertied livelihood losers.
hailing from landed and landless households emphasises the positive role of access to assets in case of rural to urban livelihood transition. It is at this point that the role of the land law and the role of the State emerge crucial in facilitating the weaker sections to adapt to the changed economic scenario. The 1894 Land Law had harped on property relations and bypassed agricultural labourers and unregistered tenant farmers in compensating for land loss. The thrust was on accounting for loss of land (as property) and not on loss of related livelihoods. The field experiences tersely emphasise in favour of the New Act that is inclusive in terms of ‘livelihood losers’, and moves beyond the stereotypes of property ownership. It also argues in favour of the mandatory SIA clause that would potentially inhibit unnecessary evictions even if at the cost of a time-consuming exercise. In both Delhi and Kolkata, the issue of acquired land lying vacant has been very prominent, making land losers hapless as they can neither take advantage of the increasing land prices nor can they continue farming. Loss of multi-cropped irrigated land often de-skills skilled agriculturalists. Farming in Delhi and Singur is capital intensive,
with high returns. Hence, it is not just a livelihood loss, but the loss of a profitable enterprise. A point often overlooked by policy makers concerns the inter linkage of women and farming. Discourses on land policy overlook the plight of rural women in cases of land dispossession. Thus, when families are dispossessed of land, intra-household power dynamics impair the social and economic viability of women.
Endnote
In short, it is important to understand that the recent proposal for a rollback of some of the crucial clauses in the New Act is clearly an aberration and has no empirical basis. Ratification of these proposals would simply reveal the intentions of the current Government to patronise big business and the neoliberal ethics of accumulation. Acknowledgement: This paper is greatly benefitted by the comments received from Prof S Sen, Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The author is Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata.
[email protected] Geography and You January - February 2015
15
