I/IV. http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/land-bill-not-anti-farmer-opposition-to-gain-political-mileage/1/217149.html
Opposition Lands A Blow The land bill is not anti-farmer, but the Centre has to fight the united opposition politically. Rajeev Dubey and Anilesh S. Mahajan Edition:April 12, 2015 Congress President Sonia Gandhi (centre) marches along with members of opposition parties to the Rashtrapati Bhavan on Tuesday. (Photo: Pankaj Nangia) Sonia Gandhi-led Congress has united a ragtag Opposition against the amendments to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Bill 2015 - popularly known as the land acquisition bill. Gandhi took it upon herself to lead the agitation after the BJP-led government passed the Bill in Lok Sabha by brute force because of its overwhelming majority in the House. Gandhi calls the amendments 'anti-farmer' and 'pro-corporate' compared to the original bill passed by the UPA government. The question, however, is whether the new-found unity among the Opposition is really an attempt to protect the interests of farmers or a desperate effort at extracting political mileage out of the burning issue. Incidentally, most of those who participated in the protest march along with Gandhi, would be taking the BJP head on in the forthcoming state assembly elections in Bihar and West Bengal, where the BJP is gaining more groundswell. Despite the vehement protests on the streets and inside the House, by most accounts, the Bill is not anti-farmer as it is being made out to be. Here's why. 13 The number of Acts brought under the land acquisition bill For one, the Narendra Modi government was prudent enough not to tamper with the most critical clause of farmers' compensation for the acquired land. It was the UPA chairperson who had overruled her national advisory council to provide the farmer with four times the market price as compensation in rural areas and twice the price in urban areas. Her decision derived from the fact that land sharks had, for decades, disadvantaged the farmer in the land acquisition process - the main cause of grief among landowners. In fact, most farmer agitations in the country were triggered by sky-rocketing prices of farmland following the change in land use after acquisition. Whether it was at Barnala where Trident Industry was at loggerheads with the locals in Punjab, or the protests at Bhatta Parsaul, in Uttar Pradesh, against Jaypee Group for the construction of Yamuna Expressway, farmers have always felt cheated as they were kept in the dark about the end use of the land. In fact, farmers have always been more than happy to part with their land if they got fair compensation. Take the case of the land acquired in Mohali district of Punjab for the airport project in 2009/10. Farmers were paid Rs 1.5 crore per acre for the 310-acre project and there has never been a murmur about it. To make the deal sweeter, the state government gave farmers 10 per cent extra as no-litigation benefit, among other goodies, such as stamp duty waiver, if they wanted to buy a new patch of land anywhere in the state. One of the most significant amendment is the government's decision to bring in 13 other Acts under the Bill, so that, unlike earlier, farmers get a substantially higher compensation (as per the Bill) even in case of land acquisition under those Acts. These include: Atomic Energy Act, 1962; Railways Act, 1989; Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962; Electricity Act, 2003; Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952; Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act, 1978; National Highways Act, 1956; Land Acquisition (Mines) Act, 1885; Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and Development Act, 1957; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958; Damodar Valley Corporation Act, 1948; Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948; and the Indian Tramways Act, 1886. So far, when land was being acquired under these Acts, they were not governed by a uniform policy on resettlement and rehabilitation that the new Bill provides. Next, the move to keep preliminary grievance redressal at the district level with a quasi-judicial authority is a very significant concession to the farmers since it will ensure he does not waste time and money in travelling long distances from his place of origin. Compulsory employment to a member of the family displaced by land acquisition will also ensure a regular source of income, besides the high compensation. This income could act as a buffer for the family since past experience shows that farmers often fall into a debt trap by splurging compensation money on liquor and non-productive assets such as cars. The move to keep preliminary grievance redressal at the district level with a quasi-judicial authority is a very significant concession to the farmers Instead of exempting social impact assessment (SIA), which requires approval from 80 per cent of land owners, the Bill has left it to the discretion of the state government. Local farmers' bodies will clearly have greater influence over the powers-that-be in the state governments. Hence, they can ensure projects of a certain size do go through SIA. From the industry's point of view, this clause would mean that most industry-oriented states, such as Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana and Maharashtra (mostly ruled by the NDA), will have an exit route. In fact, regional parties ruling in states such as Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh are also extending support to the Bill by keeping quiet on SIA. In acquiring land, the government will prioritise use of wasteland. It will conduct a nationwide survey of wasteland to help identify land that could be used for industrial and social infrastructure projects. The argument of not acquiring land where more than two crops are cultivated, does not carry weight, though, as this will push states like Haryana and Punjab, as well as western UP, behind. Meanwhile, the Ordinance - unless ratified by both Houses of Parliament - is set to lapse on April 5, 2015. Given the ongoing opposition and the government's inability to make a breakthrough, it's highly likely that it will have to re-promulgate it and risk itself of being branded anti-democratic and anti-Parliament. But the real test will be to avoid being labelled anti-farmer. (Follow the authors on Twitter at: @rajeevdubey; @anileshmahajan) II/IV. http://www.rediff.com/news/special/all-that-is-wrong-with-the-ndas-land-bill/20150319.htm All that is wrong with the NDA's land bill Last updated on: March 19, 2015 20:50 IST *The land bill 2015 as passed by the Lok Sabha contains major lacuna's in regard to farmer's rights. It is best advised and hoped that the government will send the bill to the parliamentary standing committee for more changes and consultation, says Vidhan Vyas* On March 10 the Lok Sabha passed the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) bill, 2015. The bill was able to clear the Lok Sabha hurdle only after 'farmer friendly' amendments were adopted to the proposed bill. However, do these amendments answer the demands of the farmers. *The one major amendment to section 3 of the proposed bill. The amendment, resulted in removal of provision of acquisition of land for private hospitals and private educational institutions within the definition of public purpose.* Effect: Even though this results in removal of express term 'private hospital' and 'private educational institutions' from the purview of public purpose. However, both these entities would fall within the ambit of proposed section 10A(1), sub-clause (b) and sub-clause (e). Hence, they would be under the exemption category and would have same procedure as that if falling under public purpose. It is pertinent to note that proposed clause 10A (1) (b) states that 'rural infrastructure including electrification' and (e) provides for 'infrastructure project including...' Thus both clause have inclusive definition. Further, this inclusive definition is to be read with the definition of infrastructure project under section 2 of 2013 act which the 2015 bill sought to amend. This 2013 definition of infrastructure clearly includes health-care and education under sub-clause (1) of the section. *The amendment provides for removal of social infrastructure from exempted category under the proposed section 10A. Also, the amendment provides for clarification to the provision of 'industrial corridor' as of government and government undertakings.* Effect: No major effect. The proposed section 10A (1) (d) clearly states, 'Industrial corridors set up by the appropriate government and its undertakings...' The term that is important is 'set up'. This implies that the industrial corridor is to be set up by the government or its undertaking. However, neither this provision nor any other provision restricts the 'government set corridor' for selling the land under such corridor to private entities. Nor any restrictions are made. It is also pertinent to note that in the concept paper on Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, the creation of social infrastructure is specifically mentioned as one of the goals of such corridor. *The proposed section 10A in 2015 bill allows the government to exempt the five categories of projects from Social Impact Assessment and limits on irrigated land, through a notification. The amendment adds that before issuing this notification, the government must ensure that the extent of land being acquired is in keeping with the minimum land required for such a project.* Effect: No effect at all. The terminology and the language is more of a mere guideline than any restriction, without making any specific rules or procedure. According to the 2013 act, the SIA provided for measure such as public hearing and report of independent multi-disciplinary expert group for various components of environment, land and residents and making measures based on such report. Hence, this amendment has not put any appropriate fail safe measures towards acquisition as was under Chapter II and III of the 2013 Act. *The amendment in proposed section 10A further adds that the government must conduct a survey of its wasteland including arid land, and maintain a record containing details of such land, as may be prescribed by the government.* Effect: Neither the amended provision nor any of the provisions of the 2015 bill provides for the measures that are to be taken by the government in regard to the survey of wasteland. This is in contrast to section 10(3) of the 2013 Act, which provides for development of equivalent area of the surveyed wasteland for agricultural purposes. *The amendment to section 10 of the 2015 bill state that the government employee can be prosecuted as per the procedure laid down in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.* Effect: This will create more hardship on the farmer/complainant, as section 197 of CRPC required prior sanction of the government for taking cognizance of an offence committed by any public officer. Thus, the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) bill, 2015 as passed by the Lok Sabha still contains major lacuna's in regard to farmer's rights. It is best advised and hoped that the government will send the bill to the parliamentary standing committee for more changes and consultation. Vidhan Vyas is an advocate in the Delhi high court and represents the National Green Tribunal Vidhan Vyas III/IV. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/modis-land-bill-farmers-are-casualty-in-bjp-and-congress-politics-of-words-2168377.html Modi's land bill: Farmers are the casualty in BJP, Congress' politics of words by G Pramod Kumar Mar 23, 2015 14:15 IST In his branded radio-show, Mann Ki Baat, Prime Minister Narendra Modi accused the opposition of spreading "lies" about his Land Bill to create confusion among farmers. The Congress, which is in the vanguard of the protest against the Bill also said the same: that Modi is lying. In response to Mod's charge of creating "confusion" among farmers, the Congress said something similar: that Modi and the BJP government are creating a smokescreen. Representational image. AFPRepresentational image. AFP "I am surprised that all kinds of misinformation is being spread," said Modi in his radio-talk. In response former environment minister and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said: "His 'Mann ki Baat' was full of lies. He has tried to spread myth." So, the principal parties in the debate have called each other liars and accused each other of obfuscating (smokescreen, confusion); but where is the truth? Who is lying and who is telling the truth? Unfortunately, Modi's words on the radio lacked details even as he insisted that his government is farmer-friendly and that he wanted to improve the lives of farmers. He even said that he didn't want farmers to end up on the margins of the cities, but to live in cities when their lands develop. But, he didn't have the specifics either to convince the intended beneficiaries or to counter the Congress charge that he was talking through this hat."Our intention is only to see that farmers benefit, their children benefit, villages benefit. So if there are any lacunae in the law, these must be addressed. This is our priority," was his refrain. But, did he say how? Did he counter charges against the main lacunae of the NDA's version of the bill, according to the opposition, such as dropping of two critical conditions for big ticket land acquisition such as a social impact assessment and consent by 70 per cent (80 percent for private projects) of the land-owners? The NDA hasn't relented to the opposition on these changes, but simply brought in five categories which pretty much covers all big projects. ALSO SEE Land Bill debate today: Can Modi govt fight its anti-farmer perception? Land Bill debate today: Can Modi govt fight its anti-farmer perception? Land Bill: Don't be misled by lies, PM Modi tells farmers on Mann Ki Baat Land Bill: Don't be misled by lies, PM Modi tells farmers on Mann Ki Baat Land Bill passes Lok Sabha test, but destined to flop in Rajya Sabha Land Bill passes Lok Sabha test, but destined to flop in Rajya Sabha Instead, what Modi said on radio was that there were lacunae in the 2013 Act, which his government has addressed: "In the Act of 2013 there were certain lacunae... Our attempt is to address these lacunae to ensure that the law is beneficial for villagers, farmers, their future generations and to ensure they get electricity and water." He went on to add that he was still willing to make changes if somebody feels that something was lacking. The opposition has raised two sore points and Modi is silent on them even while promising improvements. Instead of the specifics, Modi's words are rhetorical: "Rumours are being spread that Modi is bringing the law to reduce compensation. I can't even think of committing such a sin... Such misinformation is being carried out for political reasons. You have to guard against them," he said. So in this political war of words, truth is the casualty. Who do the farmers believe? The government or the opposition? Unfortunately, the charges of the opposition are worrisome and the government has tried to address them with emotions than with reason. The vulnerability of farmers' interests to the interests of the private sector, whether it is for exclusively private enterprises or public private partnerships, as raised by the opposition is not a mirage because the two safeguards that the government has dropped make the Bill sufficiently porous. The opposition is united on the cause and now the possibility of Anna Hazare becoming the magnet of anti-government sentiments looms large. Although many state governments had supported the new Bill, there will still be political opposition. In Tamil Nadu, the DMK has already pledged support to Anna's agitation against the Bill. If the BJP is convinced that the Bill is pro-farmer and pro-poor and not pro-rich and pro-corporate, it should engage in a transparent public debate with the opposition. Calling each other liars doesn't help remove the smokescreen. The Bill has the potential to displace millions of farmers and rural populace from their lands and ecology. The potential social impact of big industries on their lands and their resultant displacement, and the need for informed consent cannot be overlooked.Unfortunately, these are the same critical points that the BJP is trying to gloss over with emotional promises. IV. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Modi-govt-betraying-farmers-Scindia-on-Land-Bill/articleshow/46704360.cms Modi govt betraying farmers: Scindia on Land Bill PTI | Mar 26, 2015, 06.47 PM IST GUNA(MADHYA PRADESH): Hitting out at the NDA government, Congress chief whip in Lok Sabha, Jyotiraditya Scindia today said here that the Narendra Modi government is "betraying" farmers through the Land Acquisition Bill. "The Modi government by Land Acquisition Bill is betraying the farmers. Congress will oppose the Bill tooth and nail," Scindia said addressing farmers at Dehri and Bharkheda-Haat areas here after his three-day long visit to rain and hailstorm-affected regions. He said the party has urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to send a central team to MP to assess the loss caused to farmers by recent inclement weather. We also demanded that the central calamity relief fund should release financial help to Madhya Pradesh farmers immediately. Scindia said that Modi should not restrict himself to only speaking to farmers in 'Mann Ki Baat' on radio but should also stop betraying them. He said that instead of 'Ghar Wapsi' (home coming or reconversion to Hindu faith), Modi government should focus on 'Zameen Wapsi' (returning land) to farmers under the Land Bill. Scindia reminded the farmers that during UPA government, the consent of farmers was needed to acquire their land whereas now Modi government doesn't find it necessary to take their permission in the Land Bill. He said that Congress and other parties together marched to the President's House from Parliament for the farmers' cause adding this will continue. Scindia sought to know from the Prime Minister that why the support price of wheat in Madhya Pradesh has been lessened in comparison to the UPA regime. Dubbing BJP government as anti-farmer, he said that the farmers were not even getting manure now. The Congress leader also assured farmers that he will raise their point in Parliament. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
