Talking about land reforms - love in time of cholera

The proposed draft of Land Policy while expresses a lot of good intentions of Nehruvian era where the policy focus was on “self cultivation” utterly fails in taking into account the developments that have already taken place during last one and half decade.

The most important point that these good intentions miss is the National Agriculture Policy 2000, which commits itself to promote (a) lease markets in land, (b) contract farming, and (c) corporate farming. This all is approved with the intentions of improving the productivity of land and making transfer of land easier for the ‘efficient users’ (who else is more efficient than private Corporations?).

For accomplishment of these goals the essential preconditions are worked out by World Bank in association with DFID and they are (i) computerization of land record (between the lines accessible by internet), (ii) regularization/legalization of all kinds of tenancy, and (iii) flexibility in protective (existing) measures in land transfers, (iv) drop restrictions on sale of land to non-agriculturalists and subdivision which have little economic justification, (v) allow transferability of land by land reform beneficiaries at least through lease and explore options for making the gains from such reform permanent, (vi) review legislation on compulsory land acquisition and, subject to the prevention of undesirable externalities, allow farmers or their representatives to negotiate with and if desired transfer land directly to investors rather than having to go through government and often receive only very limited compensation.

This well intentioned effort of advocacy also seems to be oblivious to the fact that after pronouncement of the National Agriculture Policy 2000, several states had gone ahead (as it is part of the State List in Constitution of India) with providing relaxations in ‘land use transfers’ and ‘ceiling’ related regulations.

This proposed policy draft is also unmindful of the fact that several state governments including the government of Madhya Pradesh has already given affidavit in Supreme Court stating that no land is available that can be provided for rehabilitation based on land for land. The latest Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy approved by the cabinet also mentions about ‘Land for Land’ but suffices it with ‘if possible’ (and every one knows in present era will be never possible).

The draft is also ignorant about the fact that ‘common land’ had already disappeared to a substantial extend and whatever little is leftover is targeted by the corporate sector in the name of plantations for “Agro-fuels” namely Jatropha in concerted manner.

Selling rosy dreams listed in the draft policy stink of what is called ‘ostrich approach’ which calls for dipping your neck in sand at the time of storm and feel safe. The wish list expressed in the draft reminds the title of the famous novel by Gabriel Garcia Marquez called ‘love in times of cholera’. At time when Government is looking for means to wriggle out of the business of ‘land acquisition’ and leave the matters to ‘market forces’ by making ‘land a freely tradable’ commodity the effort best can be termed as dangerously novice.

It is this context, while the intentions of draft policy sound plausible, the implications of the draft provide the government the basis to fiddle with existing laws and procedure to make it smooth for the corporate takeover of the land and fulfillment of its promise to its Creditor and Donor like World Bank and DFID.

Statement of Concern -draft (30/10/2007)

We highly appreciate the efforts by the participants of the JANADESH 2007 yatra for their contribution in bringing the perennial issue of Land and its equitable distribution back on National agenda.

Some of the demands raised by this mammoth effort have their roots in the struggle for India’s independence which raised the aspirations of the peasantry by the promise of ‘land to tiller’ once the country has done away with the shackles of colonial rule.

The Land laws and the agrarian policies in the initial phase of Interdependent India were also guided by the urge to promote “self cultivation” but with the pressure of achieving ‘self sufficiency’ in food and the advice from international agencies like Ford Foundation the government of India had embarked upon ‘green revolution’ and began to slag behind on its commitment to the promise of ‘Land to the tiller’.

The Agriculture Commission set by the Government of India in its report’s volume XV on land reforms in 1972 (20 years after Ford Foundation funded pilot programme in 1952) brought out the fact that in major part of the country which were governed by the Zamidari and Mahalbari systems till the colonial rule the implementation of land reforms was utter failure. To insulate the Government from the fallout such report the process of initiating Land Ceiling Laws was initiated the same year and all most all the states have come up with the required law with slight variance.

During the ‘Emergency Era’ the famous 20-point programme also incorporated agenda of distribution of land to the land less and deprived communities. There was a rush of competition among the Chief Ministers and other functionaries in getting photographed distributing land titles. All of us connected to grassroots in one way the other know very well that half of the land that was claimed to be distributed never been able to be ‘possessed’ by the legal claimant. On other this ‘claimed to be distributed land’ was not the acquired ceiling surplus land.

A lot of militant ‘land grab’ movements by the peasant organisations from verity of ideological shades in various parts of the country were witnessed during 70s and 80s. But with the beginning of World Bank backed programme of Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) in 1989 and the fast transforming functioning of parliamentary system in India (particularly with the demise of opposition as institution) had taken the steam out of the struggles and slowly but surely the question of land and its equitable distribution was tendered redundant.

In 1991, when Mr. Manmohan Singh as Finance Minister in Mr. Narsimha Rao’s Government laid down the agenda of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation the foundations were laid to change the fundamentals of the previous ‘policy framework’ in all sectors of economy including Land and Agriculture. Gradually the focus of agrarian policy began to drift from ‘self cultivation’ to smooth transfer the land from the ‘inefficient users’ that is small and marginal farmers to ‘efficient users’ that is private corporations.

The context of land question and its ‘equitable distribution’ has transformed completely as the impact of joining WTO and giving a twist to Indian agriculture towards ‘export orientation’ saying good bye to the legacy of ‘food self sufficiency’ as hallmark of official policy framework.

The National Agriculture Policy 2000 loudly and clearly pronounced to promote (a) lease markets in land, (b) contract farming, and (c) corporate farming. This all is approved with the intentions of improving the productivity of land and making transfer of land easier for the ‘efficient users’ (who else is more efficient than private Corporations?). It has also stated to promote biotechnology and genetic engineering as the basis to improve productivity of Indian agriculture.

For the accomplishment of these goals the essential preconditions are worked out by World Bank in association with DFID and they are (i) computerization of land record (between the lines accessible by internet), (ii) regularization/legalization of all kinds of tenancy, and (iii) flexibility in protective (existing) measures in land transfers, (iv) drop restrictions on sale of land to non-agriculturalists and subdivision which have little economic justification, (v) allow transferability of land by land reform beneficiaries at least through lease and explore options for making the gains from such reform permanent, (vi) review legislation on compulsory land acquisition and, subject to the prevention of undesirable externalities, allow farmers or their representatives to negotiate with and if desired transfer land directly to investors rather than having to go through government and often receive only very limited compensation.

After pronouncement of the National Agriculture Policy 2000, several states had gone ahead (as it is part of the State List in Constitution of India) with providing relaxations in ‘land use transfers’ and ‘ceiling’ related regulations. The Government further reinforced its commitment to transfer of land to the private corporations by enacting Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 which provides lot of concessions to the developers at the cost public exchequer and violates the fundamentals of even neo-liberal dictums of ‘equal playing field’ and ‘fair competition. The Government’s efforts of promoting plantation of Jatropha to meet targets of its own policy of mixing Ethanol with diesel on common and government lands for feeding “Agro-fuel” refinery set up by private corporation also create doubts on the credentials of both the government in general and its present leadership in general.

It is this context that we take the response of the government to the plausible effort of JANADESH 2007 by announcing setting up of a Commission under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with pinch of salt.

We have serious doubt that the commission of this sort will be capable of standing against the commitment and enthusiasm of the government in implementing the obligations of WTO that are adversely affecting the small and marginal farmers; SEZ Act 2005 and non implementation of Forest Right Act, 2006 which are essential to pave way for any effective pro-poor land reforms.

We also do not see much scope of justice to be done for the poor and the marginalized by a commission comprising of ‘stakeholders’ which includes colonizers, builders and developers, funded NGOs along with the token representation of the farmers.

Hence we do not see these promises made by the Government as victory but see it at most as the beginning of a crucial and decisive phase of long history and traditions of Land Struggles.

To be endoresed by several activists & intellectuals. If you want to endorse this pl mail to: Anil Chaudhary at anilpeace@gmail.com or insaf@vsnl.com

Links to IFI documents:

1. Study done by CCDS & Ekta Parishad in PACS programme of DFID- "Towards a people's land policy": http://www.empowerpoor.org/downloads/people's%20land%20policy.pdf

2. World Bank report- "India - Land policies for growth & poverty reduction (July 9, 2007)": Download pdf

3. FAO working paper "Land and livelihoods - Making land rights real for India’s rural poor (May 2004)" - Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) funded by DFID: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/J2602E/J2602E00.pdf