Amendment to land acquisition bill : For and against

Amendment to land acquisition bill : For and against

Introduction:

Amendment to the land acquisition bill has been one of the most controversial matters for some time since the Modi Government decided on further amending it for the benefits of industrialization. The opposition had the best advantage of all as they went on accusing the government for being bias towards industrialists and ignoring the grievances of farmers largely. Upon careful consideration of the terms mentioned by the opposition, the government has finally passed the amended bill in Lok Sabha and is yet to pass through Lok Sabha. Not just the opposition but socialist and anti corruption leaders like Anna Hazare have come forward to oppose the bill. Is the bill going to prove effective in development of Modi's vision of India or will in end up in further infuriating the already furious farmers of our country?

For:

1. The former was neither farmer-friendly nor good for industrialization. The act passed by the UPA government kept 13 most frequently used acts for Land Acquisition for Central Government Projects out of the context in every way. Most of these acts are applicable for national highways, metro rail, atomic energy projects, electricity related projects, and others that are highly necessary for the development of an agricultural national such as India. The amendments under consideration is to bring all those exempted terms from the 13 acts under the purview of this Act for the purpose of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. This will definitely prove to be beneficial for farmers and other affected families.

2. The new act would ensure changes in the Land Acquisition Act that would lead to a fast track process for defence and defence production, rural infrastructure including electrification, affordable housing, industrial corridors and infrastructure projects including projects taken up under Public Private Partnership mode where ownership of the land continues to be vested with the government. This would improve industrialization and lead to economic benefit for the nation at large.

3. Land acquisition for the purpose of national security, defence, rural infrastructure including electrification, industrial corridors and building social infrastructure is beneficial for the country entirely and there is no opposing to this act just because multi-crop irrigated lands would also come under this category. The government would eventually make provisions for the famers or families whose land would be acquired under this act.

4. The act would ensure that the farmers get their land back if the property remains unutilized for more than five years. This would also ensure that the land acquired under this act is put to proper usage for the development of infrastructures or industries within the given period else the farmer can claim the land back legally.

5. Bureaucrats will now be punished if they are found to be violating the laws mentioned in the act. Interferences of the bureaucrats make it difficult for poor illiterate farmers to fight for their land rights. The amendment to the act has this clause of punishing the bureaucrats which would ensure maintenance of proper law and order and justice to farmers.

Against:

1. Exemption of social assessment before land acquisition which was mandatory in the former act is something which the government should re-consider. The proposed bill lacks this terms which is doing no good to the farmer and others opposing the amendment of the bill.

2. As much as the government might try to ensure that the act is for the benefits of the farmers, the clauses tell an entirely different story. It is more inclined towards industrialization and for the benefits of industrialists than farmers. On one side the government shows sympathy towards the underprivileged in India and on the other side ignoring the grievances of farmers is double standard at its worst.

3. Giving back the land to the farmer only if the land remains unutilized for more than five years makes no sense at all. Within five years, it is mostly expected that the land would be put to usage. This duration should be shortened to one or maximum two years.

Conclusion:

The ordinance seems to have both positive as well as negative aspects. Keeping diplomacy aside, the government should look towards the farmers with mercy and ensure that they get their share of livelihood with respect and without hassles of facing trials for their land. Government should consider the points brought out by the opposition and anti corruption leaders like Anna Hazare and take wise decisions towards the benefits of everyone equally. Being an agricultural country India cannot ignore the pleas and grievances of the farmers.