By issuing an ordinance, which is a privilege granted in the
Indian Democratic “Socialist” constitution and by reissuing it to extend it
before the Rajya Sabha can vote on it, the Modi government has probably given a
window of opportunity to initiate land acquisition in critical disputed areas.
Furthermore, by adjusting their opening bid to stave off major objections, the
Modi administration has taken a “balls to the wall approach” by calling a Joint
Session to pass the amendments, since it is likely to be stalled in the Rajya
Sabha.
This article by Swaminathan Aiyar provides some insights to
the way Modi could succeed in getting his way.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/new-land-bill-will-win-not-lose-votes-for-modi/
There are stipulations in the Land Acquisition Act that are
major obstacles to Rural Land Acquisition, most of which is categorized as
either Agricultural or Forest regardless of no forest cover and no agricultural
activity taking place. These are:
- Social impact assessment
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Both of the above pertain mostly to the landless that rely
on the land they do not own for their subsistence. There is also a consent
clause which may or may not apply.
Given the right price, conditions and benefits, farmers
could be convinced that they stand to gain by selling their land. It is dealing
with the affected landless that can present an insurmountable challenge. This
is what Modi’s modification is attempting to overcome. The amendments
facilitate the preference to industrialize established “corridors” rather than
developing new industrial corridors for large projects in the hinterland.
Scaling down the obstacles mentioned above, would result in
a “pro farmer” bill for the land owners. At most the amendments can be cast as
an “anti-farming” bill since it may result in farm land being acquired for
non-farming purposes. People who might be affected adversely are the landless
who squat on land, often to the frustration of the rightful owner.
Addressing the Social Impact goes hand in hand with
Relocation and Rehabilitation. Past experiences have shown the success rate of
rehabilitating the landless, even when attempted with the best of intentions.
It requires significant intervention at the personal level. It may look good on
paper, successful execution is another matter.
Land Acquisition is a State issue and there are provisions
permitted for the States to address the hurdles mentioned above. The NDA could
have quietly gone about pursuing the development strategy in NDA controlled
States and let the Opposition controlled States deal with their obstructive
approach.
Rahul Gandhi has responded in typical Indian obstructionist
manner in hoping that by thwarting development, the Congress can claim failure
of the NDA and thereby make a better show at the next election. By making this a National issue, and banking on
the NDA showing the fruits of development, show casing happy farmers, Modi
could point to Rahul claiming we have proved him wrong.
Rahul is right in stating that an election cannot be won by
angering 67% of the population.
The contrasting article, heavily left leaning
and socialist in bent, feels Rahul has scored a point. In actuality, Rahul has bet
on Modi not delivering.
And so if Modi wins, India wins and it would be a justified
set back for Rahul and his party.
