Acquisition of land – the ghost that haunts Indian farmer
Land acquisition in India is eternal conflict between the governments and the peasants for the reason that the governments forgot and deviated from the path of achieving “socialistic pattern of society” which was the resolution of Indian Parliament in 1954 basing on which the word “socialist” was included to the preamble through the 42nd Amendment Act on 18th December 1976. Smt. Indira Gandhi fought a valiant battle with the Judiciary that ruled in favour of the Right to property and finally the Judiciary compromised by allowing the Articles 31A, 31B and 31C to remain excepting that they are subject to judicial review. The consequence of this battle between Judiciary and Parliament was that Right to property remained a mere constitutional right thereafter instead of being a Fundamental right which could have been otherwise challenged under Article 32.
The UPA government tried to correct the course of Land Acquisition by increasing the amount of compensation to four times the Market Value during its tenure. But again the Modi Government is after the farmer indicating that the sword always hangs on his head precariously without allowing him to have a sense of security about his land.
When the Parliament makes a legislation or amendment it should go into the history of legislation a bit so that it understands the implications of law it makes for the people and also keeping in view the aspect of public justice which is administered by courts of law because these legislation are always subject to challenge by the Citizens, for the reason that by virtue of Article 300 the Citizens can sue the State and hence they are liable for a judicial review. This right to challenge the State under Article 300 by Ordinary Citizens indicates the transformation of nature of Government/State from the monarchy to democracy. The State no longer enjoys sovereign immunity for any of its actions. When we say State, it includes all organs of State including the Parliament.
Regarding Land Ownership Right in India, the following is relevant:
The report of the Indian Taxation Enquiry Committee (1925) provides that “Be that as it may, the evidence of Rig Veda Samhita shows that among the Indo-Aryans the arable land was held in individual ownership or in family ownership, the communal ownership having been confined only to the grasslands. Private ownership of land was an established institution among the Indo-aryans in the most ancient times to which their history can be traced.”
According to Manu the Land belonged to the persons who cleared the jungle and brought it under cultivation. The same authority said that he could sell, give bequeath or otherwise alienate it at his individual discretion. The ruler never claimed the ownership in the soil. Jaimini has asserted this position. Once there was some religious sacrifice going on and the king of the country wanted to endow some property to a number of priests. He wanted to give them ownership or proprietary right in the soil, but Jaimini told him that he has no right to give ownership in the soil to the priests, because it belongs to the man who cultivates the he can only transfer the right to collect the rend from the land. What the Hindu Kings enjoyed was only the right to collect a tribute from the land and not the right of ownership and collect the produce of the land as a whole. (SR Myneni Land laws, P.11).
It is interesting to note that the above position relating to Jaimini’s exposition to King is synonymous to the concept of “land belongs to the tiller” (Dunnevaadide Bhoomi) evolved by the peasants in Telangana region who indulged in armed struggle against State which was controlled by feudal ruler Nizam). And much more interesting is the idea that these two positions indicate that the Right meets Left on the platform of Indian history and traditions. There is no difference at all between the Leftist ideology of “land belongs to tiller” and the Rightist position taken by Jaimini that King has no right to cede ownership of land to priests and that of Manu who expounded that the Land belonged to the persons who cleared the jungle and brought it under cultivation.
Now the question arises from where the State got the authority to acquire the land of the citizens?
It comes from the Concept of Eminent domain evolved by British Common Law. The principle of ‘eminent domain’ is the doctrine of British common law. The term eminent domain was taken from the mid 19th Century from the legal treatise “De Jure Belli et Pacis” written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625 who used the term “dominium eminens” (Latin for Supreme Lordship) and described it as follows:
“…….the property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the State, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends of those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private lands should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good this loss to those who lose their property”. (SR Myneni, Land Laws, P.15).
The above exposition by and large explains how the State acquired the right over the lands owned by private individuals and needless to say, one can easily understand from the foregoing discussion that this concept of State exercising authority over the lands of people is not originated in India nor it is in tune with the Leftist ideology of “Land to the tiller” or the Rightist ideology of Manu that Land belonged to the persons who cleared the jungle and brought it under cultivation.
There (in Manu’s exposition) actually lies the beauty of freedom of nations and its people in that simple principle that land belonged to the persons who cleared the jungle and brought it under cultivation. Two points can be noted from this principle…1. That land cannot be owned by anyone other than the one who puts it to use for benefit of mankind by actually working on it, in alignment with his personal benefit. 2. No man can till a land more than what he can.
Now if this remains the central theme of the Land legislation of a Nation imagine how free the Nation could be. Everyone has a sense of security. Everyone can contribute his energies to develop a land and put it to use for his own benefit because he can choose any land without fear of law, police or the owner of that land. Freedom of a nation lies in the freedom of its people and freedom of its people depends on their freedom to put the resources of nation in a free manner so that they do not have to starve to death. Every citizen of the Nation is owner of the wealth of nation which is not transformed into the usable wealth, and that includes the land. And that is why he can choose any land to make a living out of it.
What happens if Citizens can do that? Then more land will be developed. More land will be under cultivation, that means greater agricultural productivity. What is the contrary position of this? The contrary position of this is – land will be owned by individuals depending on their ability to invest in purchasing lands. They will be doing so for the purpose of passing on that wealth to future generations. And that land will be protected by the Courts, Police and State (because it is owned by someone) from the people who want to put it to use for cultivation. That means more and more land will lie vacant if the owner does not want to put it to use because he lacks time to use it for his benefit because he has other businesses to look after or it will be given for lease to tenant-farmers which will be leading to the disease of absentee landlordism which was opposed vehemently during 1950s when Government introduced large-scale land reforms. If land is not put to use for cultivation because owner lacks interest in it, then that means lesser land in the country under cultivation and that means lesser productivity.
That brings us to the awareness that the concept of “land to the tiller” will directly impact the agricultural productivity positively and the concept of ownership will impact the agricultural productivity negatively. When our own Indian jurisprudents have given such beautiful law for its people contributing to their freedom why should we follow the law left for us by Britishers that we have driven out from our country?
Now we have left the path of socialism and are operating in a globalized economy. The stress is more on industrial productivity than the agricultural productivity. The notions that industrialized nations developed is that agriculture is the work of underdeveloped nations, let them produce and export let us industrialize and get wealthier than them at a faster rate. Food is cheaper than the goods produced by the Industry, it can be imported from any poor country, industrial activity is more important.
The problem with this notion is, what happens during emergency situations like War if we are not self sufficient in Agricultural production? The Nations that export agricultural commodities will not export during war time. Our people will starve to death. If you say that we cannot make our economic policies on the possibility of war then that applies to Defence expenditure also. That is why, Agriculture is something that any Nation cannot afford to ignore. Whatever expenses we make on defence keeping some war in view, the same meticulousness should be there in meeting the exigencies of war with regard to food for people. Unless the country remains self reliant in terms of Agricultural production all the time such exigencies cannot be met.
Therefore, land ownership is not a matter of right for anyone, either for the state or for the people. Land can be put to use but it cannot be owned. The aim of any land law should be to provide land to any citizen who wants to develop it and put to use for cultivation, help him in Land development if necessary and giving rights over that land as long as he and his family, his successors continue to work on it. There lies the common good of society.
With regard to Land acquisition by State, especially with that of farmers, the same principle applies because the lesser the land under cultivation the greater the possibility of country being self reliant in terms of Agricultural production. If the State shows enthusiasm blindly to donate the lands of farmers to Industry, more and more land under cultivation will deplete and that impacts the Agricultural productivity. The aim of Agricultural productivity should be balanced growth by all sections of farmers rather than few wealthy farmers using modern techniques producing all the requirement of the nation. This is important because not only the Nation and wealthy farmers, but also the poor farmers have to make their survival.
When acquiring Land of farmers only the compensation to loss of property is considered by the legislative bodies. Here, the aspect of loss of livelihood is not noticed. Farmers live in villages where there are no educational facilities to develop skills. They do not know any work other than farming. If their lands are acquired and compensation is paid, all that compensation will be spent by them before they resettle in some other profession or they become beggars. Therefore, even if it is indispensable for the State to acquire land of farmers for any public purpose, the State’s responsibility does not end with providing compensation for Land acquired, it should also compensate the loss of livelihood of the farmer.
This position is somewhat synonymous with labor laws where the employee who is disabled at work place due to accident is only paid compensation for loss of salary but medical compensation is not paid. Even there full salary is not paid. The employee met got disabled during the course of work for the purpose of work and the employer says I will give only half the salary to you and the State says that is all he can do. The lawmaker forgets that salary is only for the purpose of meeting monthly expenses, and when the employee is in hospital paying medical bills, he needs two times salary during this period and he is paid by the employer only half the salary. What is the reason? He is not contributing to the employer’s productivity. He met with accident during the course of his contribution to employer and that is his personal problem not the problem of employer? How can it be?
Why the laws in our country are so class conscious about the need for unjust enrichment of rich and wealthy? The other side, the land laws were not properly implemented. Reasons are there that is altogether a different subject it is not necessary to going into that subject now. However I would leave by saying that the ownership pattern of land and the relationship between landlord and tenant is such that people are treated like slaves.
Land is owned by the rich. The poor work as tenants in their lands paying huge rents in kind. It is necessity of the poor to work because unless they work they cannot survive. They need work everyday. But the owner does not have to work. So he sits pretty and dictates terms to the tenants. If you do not accept to these terms it is OK you do not work. He keeps the land uncultivated if these terms are not accepted. He can afford to do so. Whose need it is to take land for rents demanded by owners? It is the need of people who need food to eat. The only work I know is to till the land and produce. I agree to your terms because I have no other way to go, I do not know any other work. You want 50% of the produce as rent? Take it. But please allow me to work on your land so that me and my family have two square meals a day.
When you compare the farmer with an employee in industries you will notice that as far as employee is concerned at least the Capital is brought by the Employer, infrastructure is created for the employee to work. Compare it with a farmer who works as tenant he is both capitalist, worker and the Employer has nothing to do. In industry the employer contributes in terms of 1. Capital 2. Infrastructure to the employee. In Agriculture the employer provides only infrastructure, that is land. The capital is brought by peasant himself at his own risk. There also he faces harassment from banks, financial institutions and micro-financiers. For bringing Capital he has to pay to banks and financiers and for using land he has to pay to the landlord. What he is left with? You imagine putting yourself in his position. All this because he has no other go, he knows no other work. The need to do agriculture is his DEPENDENCE. It is put to exploitation. Exploitation of man’s sweat and forced labor for our own benefit is not forcing him to be a slave? Are we an INDEPENDENT nation? How can we call ourselves an independent nation when such huge section of society is treated like slaves and depend on forced labor. Is forced labor not synonymous with slavery? Tum ko kaam karnaa hai tho karo (at my sweet will, terms and conditions), nahi tho maro…..is this the way the Nation treats its farmers? That is why lakhs of farmers have committed suicides during the past 15-20 years. Everyone’s need to work need not be emphasized. However one should not be forced to work on the terms exploitative and disadvantageous to him and by hanging a sword of hunger over his neck. That is subjecting him to slavery, nothing else. After 60 years of Independence we cannot afford this situation in the country
Instead of waking up to the genuine needs of that section of society the government is making laws to acquire their land and there too without considering the aspect of loss of livelihood, which inevitably leave them as beggars on streets in short period of time. . If we force them to become beggars and slaves we cannot enjoy pride when India wins cricket matches. Their sight puts us to shame. I would ask the parliamentarians to look at the faces of people around them in Delhi and the faces of farmers agitating with Anna. If they appear as equals they can pass this amendment to the Land acquisition Act.
Instead of making amendments to the land acquisition law, the law that the Government needs to make is that whatever land that remains uncultivated for more than a year can be cultivated by any farmer or group of farmers who bring it to the notice of the government that it remained uncultivated for such period of time. If many farmers bring it to the notice of government at a time, then one farmer among them can be chosen by chits method or some other method as the legislature deems suitable. That will create a sense of urgency in the land owners to give their lands to the farmers. Preference should be given to farmers who do not have any land at all under cultivation. With this legislation, farmers can negotiate for lesser rents with land owners. How? If the land owners keep the land vacant for more than a year the State steps in to give out that land for cultivation to tenant-farmers for 3 years free of cost. With that fear the landowners will be forced to negotiate for lesser rents and give off the lands to the tenant-farmers. That will act in favor of the tenant-farmers, because their bargaining position will improve and that will ultimately boost agricultural productivity and lessen the suicide tendencies in farming community.
Why Industry wants Agricultural land of farmers?
It is pertinent to ask this question because as per the statistics the land under cultivation is only 51.63 percent of the total land area of the country that means there is still a lot of undeveloped land that government can allot to industry. The reason why industry wants agricultural land for setting up industry is it comes to them in the shape of “already developed land”. They do not have to invest their money to develop any undeveloped land. That means “savings” for Industry. In simple words this situation can be described as “savings for those who have money and who are capable of spending and loss for those who have no money”. If government can tell the industry I cannot give coal mining licenses free of cost why cannot it tell the industry, “don’t ask me the farming lands, you can ask for any undeveloped land I will provide for you, develop it on your own cost and put to industrial use”. That should be the policy of government for the land required by the industry.
