In Defence of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Photo source: FRONTLINE

The post liberalization Indian economic boom continues to create a voracious appetite for space to meet the demands of industrialization, infrastructure building, urban expansion and resource extraction. The emerging modern market completely depends on land resources, but Asian countries like India and China are facing a scarcity of land, specifically non-agricultural land. Indeed, land acquisition has become a most vexing problem for policymakers in India. Names like Singur, Nandigram, Kalinganagar, Jaitapur, and Bhatta Parsaul have entered the human lexicon as poignant metaphors of social conflict. The Left Front, which built a remarkable political hegemony in West Bengal largely on the basis of Operation Barga and land reforms, has been brought to its knees after a botched attempt at wresting a thousand acres for a car factory, illustrating how land issues have seismic potential in our political landscape. For those whose lands were acquired and people whose livelihoods depended on the lands acquired, a great human tragedy has unfolded. Independent estimates place the number of people displaced following development projects in India since independence at 60 million. Only a third of these people were resettled in a planned manner.

In this context, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 offers a genuine protection and expansion of the rights and interests of the poor and vulnerable - as seen in its decentralized, participatory and time-bound approach, its emphasis on a just and informed and transparent process, inclusion of hitherto ignored aspects like rehabilitation and resettlement, comprehensive compensation package, ensuring improvement in standards of living of the all affected. In view of the recent criticisms from the right wing, several other political parties and the industrial lobby, there is need to protect the said Act from any amendments that would fundamentally alter its democratic principles and its ideal of social justice. At the heart of the matter, the question is not that of higher GDP on the back of the neoliberal political agenda but rather how can broad based development be achieved, keeping in mind the reality that growth effects are diffused through a political-economy of difference – that of class, caste, region etc. 

It has been suggested that the consent clause of the 2013 Act has virtually halted the process of land acquisition, that the Act violates federal provisions of the Indian constitution and the process of acquisition outlined, including the social impact assessment (SIA) exercise, is too cumbersome and impractical. Is there any merit in these criticisms?

The Act requires consent of 80% of all land losers in case of acquisition by private companies and 70% in case of PPPs. This provision has been severely criticised for making land acquisition virtually impossible, for dissuading private investment and industrial development and consequently being anti-growth, anti-jobs and therefore anti-people. What is not being voiced enough is that these provisions have been introduced in light of the experience of the previous colonial legislation which gave draconian powers to the state without any safeguards against the abuse of this power or against acquisition.

Criticisms against the Act for being against the federal spirit do not hold ground. It should be noted that though land is a state subject, land acquisition is mentioned in the concurrent list. The new Act is explicit on active state participation in the process of acquisition. Furthermore, crucial decision-making powers pertaining to whether land should be acquired, purchased or leased; the extent to which multi-cropped irrigated land can be acquired; ensuring rehabilitation and resettlement; determination of compensation etc vest with the states. Clearly then, all efforts have been made to protect the federal principle.

The importance of SIA and public hearings is unquestionable. It allows for a dialogue amongst stake-holders, to establish who will be affected (individual or community), what will be consequences of acquisition for them, what is it that the affected want and moreover, SIA encourages participation, sharing of information, transparency and accountability. This mechanism is now being critiqued as a complex and time-consuming administrative hassle for it involves an initial socio-economic profiling of the area, multiple hearings at different levels, allows time for information dissemination at various stages of the acquisition process etc. However, it should be highlighted here that the SIA exercise is time bound and the Act states that it has to be completed within six months. Removing or diluting this clause goes against the very grain of a just polity.     

There are various other clauses regarding which changes have been sought. For example, one observation is that penalty provisions against civil servants in case of any misconduct are too severe. It should be remembered though that assigning responsibility for one’s acts and holding them liable to them should not be considered as a negative feature, particularly given the way things work in this country. The comprehensive compensation package is seen as impractical, unsustainable and as substantially increasing the cost of land acquisition and making projects unviable. But for the first time, the interests and rights of the most vulnerable and marginalized sections of the Indian society have been protected and expanded. In India, land is not just a factor of production, a source of monetary income and employment; it is much more, land is an identity, and is an emotional and a social asset, the value of which cannot be gauged or is very difficult to be estimated only within economic and livelihood frames. 

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was drafted and subjected to extensive public debate before being enacted. Now changes are being proposed to it without any substantive basis, without public discussion and dialogue amongst the stakeholders. The Act is pro-poor, pro-tribals and pro-farmers; and is seen as an important mechanism to counter Naxalism. In fact, this legislation provides an opportunity for wider reforms, for instance, digitisation of land records, in the arena of registry etc. It has been in operation for too short a duration to judge its performance and any unilateral top-down changes may well spark violence – the very anti-thesis of the new Act’s objective. A briefing was organised by RGICS on 7^th August 2014 to discuss the proposed amendment to this Act. The representatives of the farmer organisations such as Delhi Grameen Samaj, Bharatiya Kisan Union and Ekta Parishad have expressed their concerns to the over ten Members of Parliament. Shri. Jairam Ramesh, who was the main architect of this Act has an extensive discussion with the representatives. The Members of Parliament and farmer groups came to a consensus that a continuous nation-wide awareness campaign to mobilise support against the amendments is need of the hour to protect such well-crafted pro-poor revised Act, which came into existence after more than a century by replacing the colonial pro-corporate Act of 1897.  

Ishita Mehrotra

Urbanisation Trend in India and its Policy Challenges

Photo Source: Ace Geography

Global evidence, especially from developed nations, indicates that industrialisation and urbanisation accompany each other (Bairoch 1988). It was expected that the 1991 liberalization reforms, by paving way for greater industrialization, would trigger urbanisation in India just like the 1980 reforms did in China. However, India’s urbanisation post liberalization has been termed as below normally ‘expected’. This could partly be attributed to the rise of high-tech and specialised industries in metropolitan cities that were labour-light as against the expected growth of labour intensive manufacturing sector.

However, post 2001 India witnessed greater private investment in areas such as industries, information technology, services sector and infrastructure. This has been reflected in rising share in non-agricultural industries in the GDP since 2001. The increased investment largely flowed into urban areas and triggered the much delayed urbanization phenomenon. This has added 90 million people to India’s urban areas in 2011 over last decade. (Census 2011, 2001 report). A McKinsey Report (2010) on India’s urbanisation prospects  projects that during the period 2010-2030, urban India will create 70 percent of all new jobs in India. The labour-intensive manufacturing, construction, and services are further expected to drive greater migration to India’s urban areas as per various projections (HPEC Report). Population estimates show that another 55 million will be added to India’s urban areas by 2021 and another 100 million by 2026. At this pace, India’s urban population will exceed its rural population by 2045.

These statistics highlight that India is at a critical juncture where its traditionally rural characteristic, best captured by Gandhi’s observation “true India lies in its seven lakh villages”, is set to undergo a historic transformation. This rapid urbanisation couldn’t have come at a more crucial time. With 69 percent of India’s 1.2 billion people expected to be between the ages of 15 and 65 by 2035, India needs to create enough productive employment opportunities to reap the benefits of this demographic windfall. World over, urban areas tend to be invariably more productive due to economies of agglomerations. In line with this trend, McKinsey’s report not only estimated that Urban India will create 70 percent of all new jobs but also that these jobs would be twice as productive when compared to rural employment opportunities. With urbanization poised to play a crucial role in India’s growth it is imperative that policy makers and urban planners embrace this phenomenon by gearing policies towards accommodating and facilitating this transformation with proper social protection and due rights to its people.

 
Contemporary Challenges
 

India so far fares poorly in most of the elements of a successful urban development strategy including land use, affordable housing, transportation, access to basic services like water and sanitation and social security. The following sub-section delve into policy distortions that are hindering economic and spatial transformation in India.

 
 
Urban Housing

Restrictive land use policy and high property prices have given rise to ‘shelter poverty’ in the form of slum and pavement dwellers. One estimate (World Bank Report)) suggests that 25 percent of urban population in India resides in slums and the figure escalates to a staggering 54 percent for Greater Mumbai. As cities expand, policymakers need to develop an inclusive urban design which provides low income housing to economically weaker sections (EWS) of society. Related to this is the problem of rigid land use policy. Floor Space Index (FSI) limits in India have historically been set way below international standards thus hindering urban densification and making the process of urban expansion expensive. In actual practise low FSI restrictions also encourage illegal construction. Thus current land use policies fail to reflect market realities and socio-economic demands.

 

Mobility
 

Easy mobility and an efficient transport system are essential for successful urbanisation. From 1951 to 2004, road network had expanded only 8 times while vehicle numbers have increased by 100 times. Thus limited road carrying capacity has increased journey times in India’s mega cities by more than 30 percent compared to smaller cities (World Bank 2013). Further, public transportation which is the only form of mobility for the poor accounts for a mere 22 percent of the urban transport system; a figure much below the average 40 - 50 percent observed in other middle income countries (World Bank 2013). Public transportation in Indian cities is also one of the most unaffordable in the world with Mumbai’s cost being twice of London and five times that of New York.
 

Sanitation

 

To make cities liveable it is essential that they be clean and have reliable water supply. In Indian cities, it is a common sight to see slum dwellers stand in long queues to fill buckets of water whenever there is intermittent water supply; this involves an economic trade-off between going to work and accessing an essential necessity like water which the poor cannot afford. Further, poor waste water management leads to an annual expenditure of nearly $15 billion to treat water-borne diseases (CII and CEEW 2010).

Urban areas by their very nature of large population and high density are susceptible to adverse effects of poor sanitary conditions. According to the HPEC report nearly 50 million people in urban India are forced to defecate in the open due to a combination of poor sewerage network, shortage of public toilets and lack of running water in toilets. Further, there are spatial disparities in access to services such as drainage and sewerage which tend to worsen as one moves towards the suburbs and as the size of the city reduces.
 

Governance
 

The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 led to decentralization of powers through the constitution of urban local bodies (ULBs) as ‘institutions of self-government’. This was aimed at strengthening urban service delivery. However, in practice, this decentralization has not progressed as envisaged. ULBs are plagued by partial devolution of power, inadequate finances and limited capacity.

 

The Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) of 2005 which was supposed to be a game changer for pan India urban development has failed to implement many infrastructure projects because of abysmal capacity of personnel at local government level in preparing and implementing projects (Planning Commission). Also, funds released under JNNURM show insignificant correlation to poverty levels in a city in addition to a bias towards big cities (Kundu and Samanta, 2012).
 

Safety and Security

 

     Cities that attract economic power and foster growth also spawn crime, violence & and an overall sense of insecurity. Today’s cities face a wide spectrum of threats ranging from terrorism to rising crime rates, civil unrests, shootings, natural disasters and other emergencies. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the rate of incidences of crime (cognizable offenses under IPC) has seen a major upward trend. Foremost among these is rape, the number of incidences of which has risen by 873% since 1953. It is followed by kidnapping and abduction (749%) and murder (250%). The impetus for urban growth will depend much upon India’s ability to sustain its homeland security.

 

To prove well prepared against these threats there is growing demand for cities to be equipped with new and emerging technologies that can ensure safe and secure cities. Security experts propose that government strategies need to move beyond enhancing its defence preparedness against crimes and acts of terror to provide integrated public security infrastructure solutions which should include real time visual, audio and location-based information.

 

 Strengthening Policy Making Processes and Outcome

Remarkably, India has not updated its definition of “urban” in 50 years leading to a downward bias on India’s urban statistics. Therefore even though some areas might display urban features, the stringent definition of “urban” would exclude these settlements from urban statistics, hindering the integration of fast expanding peri-urban areas through good urban planning (World Bank 2011). Further, the data pool on housing is characterised by poor timeliness, coverage and inaccuracy; this has serious implications for making effective policies and fund disbursement.

Indian cities and towns lack basic amenities and services because the paradigm of urban planning in India has mostly focused on providing investment and infrastructure without adequately addressing concerns of governance and service delivery. The institution of urban governance is compromised by multiplicity of agencies, fragmented and often overlapping authority without adequate coordination and lack of accountability. Undoubtedly, urban governance needs major policy reforms.

As urban population is likely to increase by at least 250 million by 2030, it is expected that the number of urban poor will rise too (Planning Commission). Modern planning has failed to include the concerns of the poor who provide much needed unskilled and semi-skilled services to support skill based activity and capital. The process of urban planning must be inclusive and cater to housing and transport needs of the poor and not just be a technical and dehumanized exercise in urban design. Such an exercise must reflect the voice of all the affected stakeholders in an urban setting.

Twenty first century India is increasingly marked by inequality, political unrest and environmental degradation. Considering contemporary challenges the objective of Indian urban policy must be redefined to help cities steer towards economically, socially, politically and environmentally sustainable and not just be limited to mere provision of public services and infrastructure.

The process of framing urban policy in India so far has adapted a top down approach despite laws contrary to that. It does not have a mechanism to involve the voice of stakeholders in its formulation. In addition to this democratic-deficit, India’s approach towards urban policy is characterised by a failure to make use of sound statistical and scientific evidence. These factors combined with less than robust implementation mechanisms and weak accountability structures have resulted in nearly a complete breakdown in the functioning of Indian cities. Reforming and strengthening the foundation of urban policy making process will foster formulation of comprehensive urban policies capable of nurturing inclusive progress.

In its ‘Approach to the 12th five year plan’ the Planning Commission of India said, “it took nearly forty years (1978 to 2008) for India’s urban population to rise by 230 million. It could take only half the time to add the next 250 million. If not well managed, this inevitable increase in India’s urban population will lead to an implosion of urban infrastructural systems”. Undoubtedly, this is a challenge that cannot be ignored at policy level.

 

Karishma Mutreja

                                                           

A Case for the Revival of the Indian Crafts Sector

Multiplying big brands from all over the world with marginal migrants lined up in the corner of the streets, Connaught Place is a hub of two contradicting realities. In the midst of the concrete structures that stand testimony to commercial capitalism, there are splashes of ethnic crafts. Right across the busy market of Janpath, I met Sarasvati. Soaked in sweat and glaring at my camera, I could gather that this was not the first time she was being clicked. She sat with a pile of golden fabric that her husband had collected from her village in Gujarat and she came to the city expecting a good bargain. And it is these contradictions that pose some central questions. What has been the government’s post-independence stance on industrialisation? Have the forces of competition and mass production unleashed by globalisation caused much harm to the culture and crafts sector than do good to India?

Liberalisation policies meant an end to the “License Raj”- the government loosened its protectionism over the micro industries and it marked a shift from crafts production to mass production. Late 1960’s saw “green revolution”, which was the exogenous push from the government which led to prosperity on both ends. Indian economy was liberalised in 1991, and an absence of a national policy or an agenda for the crafts sector reduced it to a secluded sector in India’s path to development.

The Handicrafts sector holds great promise, in terms of export potential and income and employment generation. It is estimated that crafts sector alone can employ 25 percent of country’s population. According to the Tenth Plan sub group report, the sector contributed around 25 percent to the GDP of the manufacturing sector. The carpet industry in India is the largest exporter in the world in terms of volume. Interestingly, around 50 percent of those employed in the sector are women.

The potential of the Indian craftsmen has not been fully tapped. Indian crafts industry has been sub-optimally employed, and the contribution of Indian handicrafts to the world exports is merely two percent. The multiplicity of middlemen has rendered the supply chain complex. Weaver’s suicides in various states, specifically Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, highlight the need for immediate government response towards tapping the sector’s immense potential.

The government, NGO’s and cultural as well as social entrepreneurs have a long way to go to revive the sector. A major issue is that of cluster identification. Since the sector is majorly unorganised, the data to categorise the clusters (as defined by the MSME industry) is unavailable and no clear methodology is formulated.

The silver lining is that there have been legislations and continuing efforts to secure and expand the rights of the craftsmen effectively. The Copyright Amendment Bill 2012, which entitles lifelong royalty to artistes and not producers, has been a step in the right direction to protect the rights of those in the creative sector. In order to give effective protection to Traditional Knowledge (TK) and Traditional Cultural Expression (TCE), the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources (IGC) has been working to develop a legal mechanism under which they will be recognised as intellectual property. This would be a landmark move as it will establish ownership of communities inheriting particular arts, crafts, medicine, designs and motifs and protect any kind of misappropriation by others.

Can India not have its own model of development, as unique as its culture?

Fair trade is an internationally recognised labelling system monitored by German-based Fairtrade International, which offers farmers in developing nations, who comply with certain social and environmental standards, higher than the market prices for their products in international markets. The label serves the two way purpose- ensuring the buyer of the quality of the product as well as ensuring better prices to the primary producers. Indian farmers have been a part of the European fair trade from past twenty years.

In an interesting turn of events, the Indian farmers have launched the Fairtrade Foundation India, a strategy working in Brazil, which aims to capture domestic market in similar manner. Application of a fair trade model to the crafts sector, with a central labelling/certification agency could prove instrumental in setting up permanent structures for the sector’s revival.

Drawing heavily from writings of Marx, Joseph Schumpeter gave the concept of “creative destruction”, standing for the hypothesis that “capitalist economic development arises out of the destruction of some prior economic order” and paves the way for a new one. The fall of Indian handicrafts post technocratic mass production meant the fall of an original economic order. Revival of the crafts sector is imperative, to acknowledge and protect the efforts of the “skilled hands”, like Sarasvati’s, which made India incredible.

Mahima Malik