There is a growing and widespread agitation around the country on the issue of land acquisition.  It is obvious that if more roads, faster traffic, greater investment and more industries have to come up, land acquisition will inevitably be needed.

I am not getting into the debate whether this developmental model is the really most suited for our needs at this moment. No matter which model we follow, rising consumer aspirations will require infrastructure which will need expansion of the current capacity. How do we handle this process so that interests of not just farmers but also farm workers are served well besides that of other stakeholders without letting anyone extract too much rent out of such an asymmetrical situation?

My key argument is that the current system, which enables the state to acquire land from farmers, pool it, reduce transaction costs of the investors and extract rent out of this in lieu of developmental services provided, is inherently flawed, unjust and unfair  because (a) it does not create a stake of the farmers in the future gains that arise from rise in property value, (b) makes the government an unfair rent seeker (generating corruption through allocation of this scarce resource often in less than transparent manner), (c) leaves landless labourers living in the acquired villages completely at the mercy of the market forces and makes no compensation to them and (d) provides no skill upgradation opportunity to the farmers and labourers replaced in the process, even if farmers are giving a small portion of land for meeting their own residential needs.

Let me suggest certain measures which can be taken to improve the situation, make the growth more inclusive and participatory and fair and just for all stakeholders – including nature.

A few key principles which may be kept in mind are: A portfolio of compensation approach should be followed rather than giving most compensation as onetime cash payment. We should include labourers as legitimate claimant of compensation for the cost of disturbed livelihood and forgone access to common property resources of the villages for rearing livestock, crafts and meeting other needs and skill upgradation should be a vital part of compensatory package. We should avoid the situation witnessed in many parts of the country where even the farmer recipients of compensation blow it off in increased dowry rates, conspicuous consumption and become unskilled labourers, sometimes washing utensils and guarding houses of those who built houses on their erstwhile farms (if one wants to meet such people, please visit farm houses and colonies outside Ahmedabad or any other city).

My  suggestions are: (a) make landless labourers paying chulha tax to local panchayat and residents of villages whose land is acquired claimants of compensation, (b) don’t pay entire compensation as cash in one go, make it a portfolio of cash, bonds and medium-duration deposits (there can be different portfolios suggesting that those who prefer partly deferred gratification get higher amount then the ones who want immediate cash), (c) develop training programmes for equipping men and women in providing various goods and services required in future ranging from running restaurant, to providing sanitation, gardening, repairs, plumbing and running various other services like creches, dry cleaning, washing etc., (d) develop an entrepreneurship development programme accompanied with a small regional venture fund constituted out of the rent collected by state, managed in the PPP mode, (e) develop facilities for vertical farming through multi-storey greenhouses and polyculture farms for providing fruits and vegetable requirements of the residents and people in neighbourhood, (e) create cultural enrichment centres so that local cultural richness is maintained by providing opportunities to artists and performers etc., a way of earning livelihood and also stem cultural erosion, (f) create fab-labs for meeting local fabrication and repair needs and (g) create small in situ agro biodiversity plots to conserve local crop varieties, grasses, birds, ants, butterflies etc., (say, at least one percent of total land acquired should be kept for such purpose in every SEZ or project.

To some, it might appear utopian and too difficult because managing complex developmental opportunities will require NSDC and several other MSME promotion agencies vital stakeholders in the developmental process. If we don’t want the crime rate to increase, security agencies to make millions, walls around housing/office complexes  to become taller and secured through barbed wires and some people become internal refugees, destitutes and farmers and dalits to become even more poor than before, we have to change our polices. The cost of not going this way will be higher instability and who knows, a bigger revolution in future.