The land question

The basic point that must be decided is whether land must be taken over at an arbitrary price or should be bought and paid for like any other commodity.

MUCH has been made in the media of the apparent contradiction between what United Progressive Alliance chairperson Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently said about development and environmental concerns. In a meeting with editors, the Prime Minister is reported to have said that while care should be taken of the environment, that concern cannot be an impediment to industrial development, without which the country would sink back into the morass of poverty from which it is slowly but surely emerging.

Just a few days later, while inaugurating a power project, Sonia Gandhi said that while industrialisation was necessary for the growth of the country care needed to be taken that it was not at the cost of the environment. She singled out the acquisition of fertile agricultural land for industrial projects and emphasised the need to ensure that farmers were paid a fair price for their land.

These remarks were seen by some observers as indicative of a rift between Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, leading to all kinds of speculation on what the result would be. In actual fact there really is no contradiction between what the two said, and it is highly unlikely that either was putting forth a point of view in which they sought to contradict the other. To put it more accurately, it is unlikely that Sonia Gandhi meant to contradict Manmohan Singh, but she certainly indicated where, according to her, the emphasis should lie, namely, with the interests of farmers and the environment.

Nor was the Prime Minister holding a brief for big business houses when he made his remarks. He was merely underlining the need to maintain the tempo of industrial growth, not devaluing major and essential environmental concerns or implying that land acquisition must necessarily be expedited or that prime agricultural land must be taken over for industrial projects.

Both pointed out a basic fact: industrial development is important and so is preservation of the environment. That industrial growth is essential is generally accepted; the question is the manner in which it is to happen. Growth means new projects, and new projects mean that land has to be acquired, so the key question is what kind of land and where can it be given over for industrial use.

A case in point is the airport that the Government of Maharashtra and the Ministry of Civil Aviation want to locate in Navi Mumbai, an area that has some 120 hectares (ha) or so of mangrove swamps and, more importantly, is drained by two rivers that will have to be diverted for the new airport.

Mangrove swamps are vital for the maintenance of the ecological balance of a region. When the original airport in Mumbai came up, apparently, a good deal of the original mangrove cover in that area was removed and built over; the area that was not built on was taken over by the slums that came up as a consequence.

Not merely that, when that airport was expanded the Mithi river, which was seen as little more than an insignificant if necessary drain, was diverted. The deluge of 2005 showed how disastrous the removal of mangrove cover and the neglect of the Mithi were. With no mangrove bushes to lessen the force of the water as it rushed down the choked river towards the sea, vast areas were flooded. The unchecked fury of water caused landslips and the collapse of whole portions of the slums next to it.

These factors have made the Environment Minister hold up clearance for the Navi Mumbai airport project. However, it is just as vital that Mumbai have a second airport as it is to protect the environment at Navi Mumbai. The existing airport simply cannot take any more traffic, and if it is not expanded, a city that is, and will remain, the commercial heart of the country will be affected. And this cannot but harm India's overall growth.

This is the dilemma. Neither concern is less important than the other, but some way has to be found to resolve it. Perhaps, as the State government says, in place of the 120 ha of mangrove swamps, an additional area of 400 ha will be provided to allow mangrove bushes to come up. Perhaps the diversion of the two rivers will indeed only be marginal, as the pro-Navi Mumbai airport lobby says, since they will be running parallel to the proposed runway, not across it the way the Mithi crosses the main runway at the existing airport. Perhaps.

Or perhaps another location can be found away from the mangroves and rivers of Navi Mumbai, for instance, at Kalyan. Steps could be taken to ensure that the security establishment near the site, which was what made it unsuitable, is adequately protected against any breach high walls, camouflaged buildings, and so on. A high-speed road and metro link could perhaps also be provided to make access to it as fast as possible. Perhaps.

This issue will doubtless be resolved in the near future, but the other issue raised by Sonia Gandhi remains and must be addressed. It is an issue over which there can be no two views, no disagreements: that is, fertile agricultural land should not be used for other purposes unless it is absolutely unavoidable. The country has thousands of hectares of barren, infertile land. Why cannot these stretches be considered for development and provided with access to the major highways leading to ports, airports and cities?

But the basic issue here is the very nature of land acquisition. The laws to acquire land date back to colonial times, when it was usual for the mai-baap sarkar to take such land imperiously as it was deemed necessary in the public interest (delicious words, these, covering a multitude of sins such as avarice, exploitation and sheer indifference to poverty-stricken peasants, or subjects of the Crown). True, these laws have been amended from time to time.

Land is a State subject, and different States have amended land acquisition laws differently. In many, the price at which land is acquired again, a colonial concept is much below the market price. The argument to keep it that way is that the state cannot afford to pay the market price when it takes land for projects such as roads and bridges.

This is nonsense. If the state wants land for itself or for corporate houses, then it must pay the going price. When land is acquired and, say, a huge car factory set up, it is inconceivable that the manufacturer will sell its cars at a price that is affordable to all. The manufacturer fixes its own price, and not a cheep from the governments and their agencies. If manufacturers want land, then they must pay for it as we pay for their cars, scooters, soap and toothpaste. They must pay the market price, as they would if they were buying a farmhouse for their chief executive officers. Is that such a terrible notion?

This is the basic concept that must be decided first. Must land be forcibly taken over at an arbitrary price never mind all the laws and regulations inherited from the British or should it be bought and paid for like any other commodity? It will be said that the cost of development will go up sharply; if it does, then that is the cost of development, the real cost.

India must certainly develop, industrially, agriculturally and in every other way. But surely not with farmers, the majority of whom are among the poorest people in India, paying the price. That is not the development that any civilised society would want.