It seems to be the rule in politics on important and crucial issues: ignore the details that are relevant and simplify them into what is considered to be the popular aspect, and the popular aspect need not be an essential part of the issue. For instance, during the debate on the India-US civil nuclear deal piloted by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the UPA1 years from 2005 to 2008, the then main opposition party, the BJP, had argued that the bill was signing away India's right to make nuclear weapons and that it was sacrificing national sovereignty. They believed that was the only way of communicating about this technical issue with the people at large. The BJP leaders refused to read the fine print that the nuclear reactors were demarcated, and only the civilian reactors came under the purview of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards protocol and inspection. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

On the other hand, the Congress, including its apparently star-leader Rahul Gandhi, pitched the civil nuclear deal as bringing electricity and development to villages and to village women like Kalavati in Maharashtra. Of course, nuclear energy was not going to generate electricity to help Kalavati or the villagers. The populist pitch is indeed the stuff of political discourse in all democracies. There is little need to bemoan the fact that it is a peculiar handicap of Indian democracy and its vile and ignorant politicians. The nuclear deal was more than about lifting of restrictions or accessing uranium or nuclear reactor knowhow, though it was all that as well. It was a sign that the US and the rest of the world were willing to deal with India on a basis of equality. Of course, the domestic debate on the nuclear deal nearly a decade ago remained loud, crude and uninformed.

It seems that the apparently vociferous debate on the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 and the amendments brought to it by the BJP government is going the same way as the nuclear debate: high pitched rhetoric drowning out real information. The bare facts are these: Land Acquisition Act 2013 had 13 projects related to atomic energy, highways, electricity, ancient monuments, metro projects, tramways et al, which were exempt from consent and social impact assessment chapters of the Act. The BJP government amendments have expanded the list of exemptions to include projects dealing with national security, rural infrastructure including electrification, affordable housing and housing for poor people, industrial corridors, infrastructure and social infrastructure projects. 

One of the Congress's rebuttals is that they have already exempted certain crucial projects and areas from the consent and social impact assessment clauses, and there was no need for the BJP to have brought in other projects under the exemption list. This is one of the main points made in the replies that Congress president Sonia Gandhi and former rural development minister Jairam Ramesh wrote to BJP minister Nitin Gadkari, who is the pointsman to canvass for the amendments. The Congress is not objecting so much to doing away with the consent and social impact assessment aspects, but it is arguing that it (Congress) had already taken care of those things that are important and that the BJP amendments are superfluous.

The Congress and other opposition parties are making a more general and necessarily inaccurate charge that the amendments hurt the interests of the farmers and, therefore, they are anti-farmer. The rhetorical thrust does not make sense unless we take into account as to who these farmers are. According to the Agricultural Census of 2010-11, there are 138.35 million operational holdings in the country, of which those holding less than two hectares comprise 85.01 per cent. These are indeed the marginal farmers. About 79 per cent of the social groups which account for the farm-holdings are those belonging to the general category, excluding Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).  

The key issue is as to how many of the holdings will disappear through land acquisition? Of course, neither the UPA nor the NDA are sure as to how much new land would be acquired. It is understandable that this has to remain an open-ended issue because the future demands of industry and urbanisation cannot be computed accurately. It surely will be the case that thousands of small-holdings will disappear through the land acquisition process. Even if there were no mandatory land acquisition, these small holdings would have either diminished or could have even disappeared into a larger holding. There is an internal dynamic where no holding will remain the same size over the years. The question then turns to compensation and rehabilitation. The BJP argues that the amendments have provided for enhanced compensation and assured rehabilitation. At the moment, it is a legal commitment and nothing more than that.

Industrialisation and urbanisation may not kill agriculture as is being feared at the moment. It is a futurist scenario that cannot be ruled out, however, where some of the global hinterlands will be used to produce food and other raw materials, and there could be many countries without an agricultural sector. It is unlikely that India will ever be an agriculture-less economy. It is not a Singapore despite the ill-conceived dreams of some unrealistic smart-alecky politicians.

Farmers do not need protection from mandatory acquisition. That is not their main contention. What they need are incentives of another kind. It is being realised that the minimum support price (MSP) is not exactly the best way of protecting the farmer. The issue is more complicated than that. The Land Acquisition Act or the amendments to it are not meant to address the issues that matter to farmers or affect agriculture in general. If the Congress and BJP want to project themselves as benefactors of farmers through the mandatory acquisition law, then it is indeed a classic case of chasing a red herring. What needs to be discussed in the land acqusition context is a clear projection of industry and urban habitations. Even if 50 per cent of the Indian population were to live in cities by 2115, a century from now, and the population in the cities were to be about a billion, the land required for that would not be more than a 25 per cent of the 138.35 million holdings. The real issue then is to talk more about future industries and cities. And how much land is required for that.    

The author is consulting editor with dna