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: 150
 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: 151
 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]
Interviews | Jairam Ramesh, Rural Development Minister interviewed by Urmi A Goswami

Jairam Ramesh, Rural Development Minister interviewed by Urmi A Goswami

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Mar 12, 2013   modified Modified on Mar 12, 2013
-The Economic Times

A balance between the need to unleash animal spirits and the larger issues of ethical governance is essential for the country to move ahead, Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh tells ET in an exclusive interview.

* Is unleashing animal spirits still the main focus of the government?

Unleashing the animal spirits is all very well but it has to be in an ethical framework. Markets is all about morals, trust, adherence to laws and I think an obsession with animal spirits to a point of ignoring these larger issues that govern the functioning of markets is not good for the country. You must unleash the animal spirits but do it in a manner that the animals don't become man eaters.

* Is there any substance to the feeling that the proposed Land Acquisition Bill will hurt the aspirational middle class?

This is a bill for the 'perspirational' masses and not necessarily for the aspirational classes. While I think that the aspirational classes are certainly important, the concerns of the 'perspirational' masses must get overriding priority. Let me hasten to add that the 'perspirational' masses have their own legitimate and worthy aspirations, which this Bill addresses. I think the aspirational classes as you put it can certainly afford to pay more for land so that the concerns of land and livelihood losers are fully met.

When it comes to land acquisition, the 'perspirational' masses have got a very bad bargain. Land has been acquired far in excess of requirement, proper compensation has not been paid both to land owners and livelihood losers and even after 30 or 40 years, resettlement and rehabilitation hasn't been completed and many times land is acquired for one purpose but used for another without corresponding benefits flowing to the original land owners. We must recognize that land acquisition in India has been tremendously iniquitous, and while the aspirational classes have certainly benefited, the 'perspirational' masses have been really short changed. It is time to introduce equity in land acquisition. This bill is all about balance—the need for land with the need for equity.

We have been behaving as if we are a land surplus country. We don't accept the simple reality that in relation to our population, we are a land hungry and land deficit country. And that those acquiring land have had it far too easy for far too long.

* Will the Bill push up the cost of land?

Land acquisition costs will increase and time spent acquiring for land will increase—there is no point running away from this. There is transparent set of procedures. This is a middle path Bill, it does not please everybody, the progressives are not satisfied saying it is not progressive enough from the point of view of land owners and livelihood losers, the industry feels that the cost of land acquisition will go up. I have navigated a very fine middle path, taken on board concerns of farmers, livelihood losers, industry, housing and urbanization. In a situation where everybody is unhappy I feel I have done the right thing; because particularly in India you can't make everybody happy. Ideally I would like to see a situation where 20 years from now all land required for industry and urbanization is purchased directly. This is a transition bill, so that we move to a situation where land records are updated and in place, we remove the information asymmetries between landowners and land buyers. So I don't see this as another 118 year-old legislation but as one that makes the transition.

* There is an apprehension that the compensation package is indeterminate. Is that a legitimate assessment?

The compensation is not indeterminate; there are clear parameters. There in nothing is indeterminate in this bill. Yes, it is going to make land acquistion more expensive but definitely more transparent. It will severely circumscribe the principle of eminent domain, which has been misused by both the central and state governments with devastating effects. In my view the Maoists problem that we face is a direct consequence of the insensitive manner in which land acquisition has taken place and the failure to complete R&R in time.

* Will the retrospective clause increase liability and litigation?

It is a deeply contentious clause, which was extensively debate. We finally decided to include it but not in an open ended manner. Agreed that there will be extra liability, but you have to recognize that public sector companies have been among the worst culprits in land acquisition. Many of the problems that coal India faces are directly attributable to the manner in which land is acquired. This is why, the exempted laws, listed in Schedule 4 of the bill which includes the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, will have to comply within one year with the compensation and R&R provisions of the new land acquisition law.

* Aren't the penal provisions of the Bill somewhat excessive?

I don't think so, these provisions are required to enforce certain discipline in the implementation protocol, which is needed. It is also to remove discretionary elements.

* Do you think that the differences between the political parties on the Land Acquisition Bill can be resolved?

The Left clearly have a position that there should be no land acquisition for private projects and public private partnerships, which in line with the Standing Committee recommendations. I have made it clear, repeatedly, that we cannot accept this position. There must be a window for acquisition for private projects for public purpose and PPP subject to clear, strict and transparent set of safeguards. That is why we have introduced a consent clause, liberal compensation provisions and progressive rehabilitation and resettlement. I think this should meet the Left's concerns. The Trinamool Congress says that there should be no forcible acquisition. Of course, there is no room for forcible land acquisition, so I think with the Trinamool, the position is not as inflexible as it is with the Left. The concerns of the Samajwadi Party, BSP and JD(U)-- compensation packages and restriction on the use of multi-crop irrigated land-- I feel have been addressed in the bill. The BJP hasn't revealed its cards as yet but the discussions I have had with BJP leaders leads me to believe that they would be on board. This is where we stand, on 20th March we meet again. The idea when we met last time was that on this Bill there should be no differences on the floor of the House. We should have an all-party consensus on the bill or sarva sammati as everybody said at the meeting.

* Moving on to politics, how does the Congress view the attempts to turn the next general elections into a contest between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi?

The elections are at one level about the Congress versus BJP; at another, UPA versus NDA; and, at the third level, Congress versus the regional parties. This 'Modi versus Rahul' trivialises a serious political conflict. It is a clash of ideologies, of competing visions, of conflicting interpretations of the past, of competing visions of how economic growth and social harmony must go together. 'Modi versus Rahul' is a good headline, but I don't think it is a reality. I have met senior BJP leaders who have said they will never serve in a Modi administration. So much for Modi versus Rahul.

* Do you believe it helps approaching the electorate with a prime ministerial candidate?

It is too early to say, what we will do on this score. Let me stress that ours is not a presidential election, ours is a system where political parties compete with each other not individuals. Our elections are not a beauty contest of individuals.

* Rahul Gandhi spoke about dismantling the high command. What is the new system going to be?

I think that Rahul Gandhi is trying to bring about fundamental structural changes in the party organization. He is genuinely committed to democratization of the party, to empowering party office bearers down to the district and block level and bringing in new people. That is not an easy task; it is time consuming and requires single-minded focus, which he is providing. He will have to replicate in the parent organization what he did for the last eight years in the Youth Congress and NSUI. Every party needs a high command and a central nervous system. The Congress has always had it even though Nehru being Nehru, during his time he did not always have things his way and he accommodated. As Rahul Gandhi has himself said, the high command reached its apogee during Indira Gandhi's time for a variety of reasons. What Rahul Gandhi is talking about is a transition away from a stifling and all-powerful high command, which stifling not so much because of the person at the very top but also because of the courtiers around that person who do not want a regional leadership to emerge. The balance between central authority and decentralised responsibility is what he will have to work out.
 

The Economic Times, 12 March, 2013, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/interviews/proposed-land-bill-is-for-masses-not-aspirational-classes-jairam-ramesh/articleshow/18916288.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close