Change necessary
by
AJ Philip |
The onus of buying land in India for industries should be on promoters
ONE of the first decisions of Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee, sworn in as chief minister of West Bengal on May 20, was to return 400 acres of land the previous Marxist-led government had acquired from 2,200 farmers at Singur for Tata’s small car ‘Nano’ project. The government had, in all, acquired 997 acres and handed them over to the Tatas on leasehold basis.
These farmers resisted the forcible acquisition of their land by refusing to accept the compensation offered by the government. Eventually, it snowballed into a popular anti-land acquisition movement. And when Mamata Banerjee joined the bandwagon against the Tatas, they shifted the project, originally aimed at selling a four-door 600 CC car for less than $2500, to Gujarat where alternative land was provided by the state government.
The farmers were not happy with the compensation offered by the government which worked out to $5,580 per acre. Of course, there were promises that some of the eligible farmers or their family members would be given jobs in the factory or allowed to set up ancillary units. But such promises did not cut ice with them, particularly when the Punjab government offered the farmers a lucrative $232,558 per acre for the land acquired for the Mohali airport project.
The Tatas were not prepared to pay any extra money as they saw the land acquisition as a government headache. It was around this time that they bought the Anglo-Dutch steel major Corus for a staggering $12 billion. Worse, chairman Ratan Tata told an interviewer that he was prepared to pay even more for the steel giant, in sharp contrast to the niggardly attitude towards the farmers at Singur. After shifting the Nano plant lock, stock and barrel from Singur, the chairman issued a full-page advertisement in all the major Kolkata newspapers in the form of an open letter to the people of West Bengal.
Ratan Tata asked the citizens, particularly the youth, to “explain their views regarding the West Bengal they would like to see in the future. Would they like to support the present government of Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee to build a prosperous state? Or, would they like to see the state consumed by a destructive political environment and lawlessness?” Not only was Bhattacharjee defeated in the recent elections, the people of Singur even elected a Trinamool Congress candidate defeating the Marxist nominee.
Although Singur is peaceful now, there are trouble spots elsewhere in the country, where land acquisition has caused tension and violence. Bhatta and Parsaul are two small villages in the Greater Noida area in Uttar Pradesh, close to the national Capital New Delhi. Violence erupted on May 7 over the forcible acquisition of land by the government for a new highway project in which two policemen and two farmers were killed.
The incident captured the headlines when Congress general secretary and ruling Congress party Chief Sonia Gandhi’s son Rahul Gandhi courted arrest to protest against the UP government’s attitude. Almost all political parties condemned the high-handedness of the government. What empowers the government to acquire private land at throw-away prices is the British-era Land Acquisition Act, 1894, under which the government can acquire any private land for ‘public purpose’ by paying a price it chooses to pay.
All public projects in the country, be it construction of a dam or setting up a steel plant or developing a new city like Chandigarh or Bhubaneswar, were made possible by this Act. However, a new trend has developed in the country whereby governments acquire private land for private industries. At Nandigram in West Bengal, the government wanted to set up a Special Economic Zone, like the ones in China, but it had to be abandoned following protests from the farmers.
In Orissa, where the Korean steel-maker Posco is to set up the world’s largest steel plant, land acquisition has run into trouble with farmers raising a banner of protest. Because political parties find the antiquated law convenient, they have not shown any enthusiasm to amend it. However, a review of the law has become overdue.
It is necessary to ensure that the onus of buying land to set up industries should be on the promoters, not on the government. The latter should intervene only after the promoters have bought 80 per cent land and 20 per cent more is required for reasons of contiguity. As regards compensation, the land owners should not only get a good price but they should also be given a stake in the project when completed.
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for AJ Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
