Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: urlPrefix [APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8]interviews/jairam-ramesh-former-rural-development-minister-speaks-to-sanjeeb-mukherjee-4675093.html"/> Interviews | Jairam Ramesh, former Rural Development Minister, speaks to Sanjeeb Mukherjee | Im4change.org
Resource centre on India's rural distress
 
 

Jairam Ramesh, former Rural Development Minister, speaks to Sanjeeb Mukherjee
-Business Standard

Former rural development minister Jairam Ramesh tells Sanjeeb Mukherjee that the Ordinance to amend the land acquisition Act (2013) opens the door for forcible acquisition and undermines the spirit and the substance of the legislation. Edited excerpts:

* An oft-repeated argument given by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government to justify bringing an Ordinance to amend the land acquisition Act (2013) passed by your government is that many Congress-ruled states have objected to the provisions of the Act, although you were in power at the Centre when it was passed. What do you have to say on this?

This is absolutely untrue. In fact, the objections that the NDA government is citing supposedly from Congress-ruled states are based on the questions that they were asked during their day-long interaction with former rural development minister Nitin Gadkari. If you ask pointed questions and the replies are interpreted as "objections", it is not an accurate description of events. In fact, what nobody knows is that the Assam government had sent a formal note dissociating itself from the amendments.

What also amazes me is that the same BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) leaders who are championing the cause of amendments to the land Act, were the ones who gave their consent when we consulted them in 2013 while this law was being framed. A standing committee of Parliament, headed by the current Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Sumitra Mahajan, had suggested 28 amendments to the land Act, and we incorporated 26 of them.

* So, in a nutshell, what is the main Congress objection to the Ordinance to the land acquisition Bill?

Our objection is both to the manner in which the Ordinance was brought to amend such an important piece of legislation; and the substance of the Ordinance. It basically pushes back land reforms in the country to the pre-Independence days, something that existed in the 1894 Act. The amendments could have been brought after a proper debate, consulting all political parties. What was the hurry ? It took me two years to build a consensus on a new land acquisition Act.

What is also surprising is that when I met the NDA's former rural development minister, the late Gopinath Munde, he said categorically that there would be no changes in the land Act. The only thing that has changed since then is the minister.

The current Ordinance takes us back to the time when forcible acquisitions were rampant and when state governments and others acquired land much in excess of what was required, leading to conflicts everywhere. This Ordinance destroys the basic structure and spirit of the 2013 Act. The 2013 Act had three main pillars, which is consent of landowners, social impact assessment (SIA) and compensation and relief and rehabilitation. Now, for private and PPP (public-private partnership) projects, the first two pillars have been virtually destroyed.

* But the government says that the compensation and relief and rehabilitation clauses have been left untouched to help farmers and landowners.

The 2013 Act provided for compensation for livelihood lost, which was done through the SIA. When you remove the SIA, on what basis will the compensation be provided? The argument for SIA was to address not just those who lost their land, but also those who lost their livelihood following the acquisition of the land - the chaiwallah, the small grocer, the panwallah... They were meant to be identified by SIA and compensated.

You must appreciate the spirit of the law. The 2013 law was a fine balance between the need to acquire land for the needs of faster industrialisation and urbanisation, and the need to protect the interests of farmers and livelihood losers. That law did not hinder leasing nor did it interfere with purchase. What it did was recognise the huge injustices that had been perpetrated by governments (and this has indeed been our experience everywhere), which were free to divert acquired land to whatever purpose they deemed fit (and this, too, has happened when land acquired in the garb of public purpose has been virtually gifted away to private builders in a number of states), over the decades, using a colonial-era law of 1894 that in name was for land acquisition, but in effect became a law that facilitated expropriation.

* Another argument given by the government for hastily bringing an Ordinance to amend the land Act is that it has enabled them to bring the compensation and relief and rehabilitation clauses in the Act applicable to 13 other pieces of central legislation , which would have lapsed after January 1, 2015.

If that was the case, then the government could have easily brought an Ordinance to amend just that portion of the land acquisition Act. Why was it necessary to issue an Ordinance to change the whole Act? The 13 Act argument is only being used an alibi to make big changes to the land Act. If the NDA government was so concerned about letting farmers and landowners get the benefit of higher compensation under the 13 other central acts, they could have simply brought an Ordinance to amend that limited portion.

* How is the Congress party going to oppose this Act? It was, after all, their baby.

We will oppose the changes, both for the content and the manner in which they were brought. We will oppose the government both outside and inside Parliament. We are also planning to galvanise our Pradesh Congress Committee to agitate against this Ordinance in a big way.

First, the Ordinance undermines the democratic spirit in which we brought the 2013 Act. This Act was passed in Parliament after almost 157-odd amendments were introduced by MPs, and we carried 29 major amendments to the original Bill. So obviously, this Act has passed through all possible checks and balances. We had managed to balance dissatisfaction, all of which has been negated by this Ordinance.

Moreover, the 2013 legislation came after two years of extensive nationwide consultations, two all-party meetings, 14 hours of spirited debate in both Houses of Parliament, in which over 60 members participated, and incorporation of amendments suggested by the-then principal Opposition party (namely, the BJP). The legislation got unanimous support across the political spectrum; if anything, the criticism was that it was not progressive enough in protecting the interests of farmers and others, whose livelihoods would be affected when land was being acquired.

The standing committee concerned had recommended that the government should not be acquiring land under any circumstances for private-sector projects and for projects being implemented in the PPP mode. These two recommendations of the standing committee were, in fact, rejected by the then government on the grounds that given land markets as they are in the country, some acquisition by the government will be necessary even for private companies.

But the safeguard against forcible acquisition that had become a feature in state after state was the introduction of the consent clause - 80 per cent consent of landowners for private projects and 70 per cent consent for PPP projects. Effectively, the ordinance now has dropped the consent clause.

* Another major contention against the land acquisition Act passed by the United Progressive Alliance government was that it delayed acquisition of land for industrial purposes and harmed economic growth. What is your opinion on this?

This is all nonsense. At best, the old Act could have delayed acquisition of land by three to four years. Heavens would not have fallen if an acquisition had been delayed by three or four years, at the most. The government is sitting on more land than it requires and this Act would have smoothened the acquisition process. This is short-sightedness on the part of the government. I have seen from close quarters what problems land issues can cause in rural areas. This Ordinance opens the door for forcible acquisition and is fodder for Maoists.

Business Standard, 17 January, 2015, http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/the-govt-
is-sitting-on-more-land-than-it-requires-jairam-ramesh-115
011700707_1.html

 

Image Courtesy: Business Standard