Land acquisition by state is historical adage. Each generation has either obeyed it or expressed its outrage in manner that best expresses that period, its polity and the way people connect with its governance.
Each ruler/ government has always justified its need for particular piece of land/land block for betterment of its masses and in process professed initiating general good for all concerned. Packaging may be different for a given time but overall content remains same: State need your/their land for general good and you/they better part with it, here is your/their compensation, now be a good boy and do what you like with it.
The kings and feudal Lords used to simply take land required and forget about compensation unless compelled to by external force.
The hegemony prevailed by fiat/diktat with no or pittance of compensation often driven down the throat of dispossessed.
With nations professing norms of democracy things are rather scaled down and “Laws for fair compensation” are prepared in advance (often by clever people who foresee a situation) and have worked out a formula that on surface; appearing to be fair to all concerned, usually works out to advantage of governing authority. This nevertheless works only as a subterfuge and is soon reacted upon with ferocity and rage that only a deprived can bring forth. We have witnessed many such events in recent times.
Land acquisitions are carried out for Nation’s need like building of railways, highways, laying of irrigation canals, building brand new cities (Chandigarh, Gandhinagar and so many more) so on and so forth. In such cases the norm has been to offer alternative land area if that is possible or to give monetary compensation or monetary compensation plus some socio-economic benefit.
Some other time land acquisitions are carried out for industrial parks, townships, power projects and the likes.
In all cases the Authority needs land that is in possession of farmers, villagers forest people since age immemorial and for which now they have found a brand new usage which “will bring benefit” to larger mass. A compensation formula is offered and presto the land shall now no more be with the owner, user “since age immemorial”. Retribution from the dispossessed follows often leaving nasty scars.
Do we have to follow this age old pattern? Do we have to work according to such routine formulas to produce ever expected results? Why can we not be creative?
If there is no doubt about genuineness of need for “a particular piece or packets of land” for designated purpose then that must be for procuring much better economic advantage in due course of time. Why can we not be honest and actually forecast such good gains? Let the good potential of land be known. Why can we not enrol all the existing “owners” as “seed partners” and offer them shareholder’s status which can not only give them monetary benefits for now but continue to offer benefits just like their previous possession pattern for all time to come. Why can we not offer them a chance to evaluate the benefits that they are reaping now from their present use pattern and compare it with “enhanced” benefits by which they can advance their status as owners/co-owners? Such seed partners/ share holders can divide, sell, mortgage, give away their “owned” portion without vitiating the use pattern envisaged just like their previously owned land.
True, such a proposition will have to have a totally new methodology, new scripting, new mode of presentation and most important of all new vocabulary, but then such a process may ensure willing participation rather than enforced dispossession. Some cynics may eschew this as nonsense process that causes only delays. However, that may invite possibilities of ensuring greater gains for early co-holders/owners and a little less for those who take their own time to decide.
Issues are complex and needs fresh evaluation and approach. However, this may ensure more peaceful transition, less volatile outbursts from affected and may bring about more civilised approach to changing land use pattern.
No comments:
Post a Comment