Trinamool doesn't want government meddling in land deals between industry and farmer

There's a delightful phrase of Persian origin called 'noora kushti'. It denotes a fixed fight ­ two people pretending to wrestle and fool spectators. The so-called tussle between the BJP-led government and Congress over the bill seeking to amend the land acquisition law is a first-rate example of noora kushti. Neither party is serious. Both are taking pro forma positions.

That is why Trinamool Congress opposed Congress' land acquisition law of 2013 and will oppose BJP's amendment bill this year. We are not doing this because we are determinedly oppositional. In fact our criticism of both the existing law and the new bill is consistent with our approach since at least 2006. TMC has lived up to its name: Truly Most Consistent.

What happened in 2006? The CPI(M) government then ruling West Bengal sought to forcibly acquire fertile, multicrop land from farmers in Singur for a car plant. Unwilling farmers were beaten up by CPI(M) cadre, backed by police muscle. In a shocking incident, a protesting farmer's daughter was raped and killed.

That episode shook Bengal's conscience. Mamata Banerjee, the leader of Trinamool, went on a marathon 26-day fast that attracted national attention. It embarrassed the CPI(M) government as well as UPA-1 in Delhi.

Matters were compounded in March 2007 when the CPI(M) government responded to similar farmer protests in Nandigram ­ location of another `land acquisition' scam ­by firing on innocent citizens. Eventually, the oppressive state machinery had to surrender to the moral authority of farmers and the just cause espoused by Mamata.

It was a historic moment. The issue of forcible land acquisition and need for a modern and fair law and mechanism to transfer agricultural land for industrial use had come to the fore. This was Mamata's contribution.

What was the prevailing situation? Land acquisition was governed by a colonial-era law dating back to 1894. This law had been drafted by the British to forcibly acquire land for `public purposes' ­ railway tracks, army cantonments, greenfield cities such as New Delhi. Free India's governments had retained this law, but used it even more dishonestly.

State governments were routinely acquiring land for a `public purpose' and then selling that land, at a handsome profit, to private companies. In some cases the land was handed over virtually free. The businessman and the government (or an individual set of politicians and crony capitalists) made windfall gains. The farmer got only a pittance. He lost his one asset ­ his precious, ancestral land ­ and was left to fend for himself and his family .

The logic applied was that of eminent domain, that the state had the right to acquire any property for a larger public or national purpose. One can understand the principle of eminent domain being applied to build a public hospital or a highway, but how does it become applicable in case of shopping malls, automobile plants, BPOs and other facilities owned and run by private enterprise?

Industry requires many 'factors of production', to borrow an expression from my Marxist friends. It needs land, water, raw material, labour, transport and logistics. In most of these government doesn't interfere. It does not seek to forcibly or cheaply acquire raw material or feedstock for an aluminium plant or a petrochemicals unit. It leaves this to the market, and to negotiation between buyer and seller, irrespective of the price.

Why can't this be done in the case of land as well? That is the simple question Trinamool asked in 2006, repeated in 2013 and is iterating in 2015. Congress failed to answer it and BJP ignores it too.

It is not a matter of x per cent or y per cent of a farming community agreeing to sell individual parcels of land. Let the industrialist negotiate and get the concurrence of 100% of farming families the land of whom he believes he needs. Let this be a clear negotiation between buyer and empowered farmer.Why should the state intervene?

Do farmers have the capacity to negotiate with industry? Perhaps all don't; that is true. Some guidance, whether from government or civil society, could be provided, but let the farmer decide for himself. And if the 100th farmer gets more for his land than the 17th ­simply because he holds out longer ­ then let the industrialist deal with it. When cement is in short supply the same industrialist is willing to pay higher prices, isn't he?

Maybe some farmers would want cash up-front. Maybe other farmers would want a staggered deal, and equity in the factory or facility being constructed. Let the onus of structuring different arrangements and giving the farmer a choice be on industry. Why should the government play fairy godmother?

As a pre-requisite for a land law and a genuine land market, India needs a rigorous and detailed map of its entire land area. Such a map should be easily accessible, including online. Also helpful would be an estimate of rust-belt land or factory land that is lying unused or is enmeshed in legal cases. How can this land be unlocked? Can we have some answers please?

Derek O’Brien
Member of Parliament from Bengal
Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party Leader (Rajya Sabha) & Chief National Spokesperson

We support progressive legislation, not the Land Bill which is draconian

Friends are asking if the Trinamool Congress is both batting and bowling in the same innings of the match in Parliament. Why did we support the Mines and Minerals Bill in Parliament, but strongly oppose the Land Acquisition Bill that seeks to amend the Act of 2013. Actually, we have been consistent. When a law is progressive and states-friendly, we will back it, irrespective of whether the law is framed by a BJP government or a Congress government.

In the case of the Mines and Minerals Bill, we were satisfied that suggestions made by Trinamool in the select committee were incorporated in the final draft. There were several parameters Trinamool used to judge the Bill.

First, local communities were invited as partners in development. Trinamool urged the government to facilitate the setting up of a District Mineral Foundation by state governments. This Foundation would incorporate tribal communities in the mining region and undo their sense of alienation and exploitation. The onus of the composition of the Foundation has been left to the state government. States have also been empowered to set up special courts for quick settlement for mining disputes.

Second, mining makes for windfall gains. It is important to retain these in the country, the state and the community. Here again the Trinamool government’s experience in West Bengal has proved a great learning. Using e-governance we have increased revenues by 87 per cent in the past three years. As such, we welcome the concept of e-auctions.

Of course, there is more that needs to be done. We have recommended that the rules that will complement the Bill should put in place a modern regulatory process for environmentally-friendly mining. We cannot repeat the mistakes of China. The need to bring in scientific and best-in-class technology practices and procedures for mining, using the mechanism of the National Mineral Exploration Trust, is also critical.

It is for these reasons that we supported the Mines and Minerals Bill. The amendments to the Land Acquisition Act are another matter. They make a bad act worse. Trinamool had steadfastly opposed the UPA’s land acquisition law. Now the NDA, by rushing through with an ordinance and refusing to let Parliament deliberate, debate and decide before such trigger-happy action, is making things that much more difficult for farmers and actual users and owners of the land.

The UPA law institutionalised rent-seeking – in the form of giving a blanket mandate, for change of land-use to government authorities. This one completely chips away at the farmer’s ability to make an informed and voluntary choice. The NDA government’s ordinance on the land acquisition law – now set to be re-issued after flagrantly ignoring the sentiments of Parliament and suddenly and unconscionably proroguing the Rajya Sabha – is draconian. It virtually legitimises forcible acquisition of land.

Trinamool will oppose this with all its might.

Derek O’Brien
Member of Parliament from Bengal
Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party Leader (Rajya Sabha) & Chief National Spokesperson