Land bill opens a Pandora’s box

Land is a physical asset that mankind has strived to acquire since the dawn of civilization. When ancient man came across terrain where water was easily available, he settled on these fertile lands which offered food for his tribe and fodder for his cattle. It is not coincidental that out of the four factors of production taught in elementary economics, only one is a natural factor-land. All the others - labour, capital or enterprise - require human intervention. Predictably, all conflicts since the dawn of civilization have been for control over land. Over time these tussles and conflicts escalated into wars.  Viewed in this historical context, the current tussle between the two national political parties, Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress, is just another poor imitation of history.

 Since the days of the Neanderthal, whenever rights over land were recognised, it started a dispute between the state and the individual. In the beginning, the leader with expansion of his power assumed the charge as lord, king, and emperor. After a few thousand years of monarchical forms of government, the nation states were born. The nature of governance also changed- from an individual centric one to a diluted form of collective leadership. And then we had democracy in all its egalitarian glory.  Be that as it may, the conflict between the state and the individual over property rights remained. The state claimed land invoking the clause of eminent domain. Individuals, the land losers, objected to the state’s right to forcible acquisition. The conflict could not be avoided even in the best possible democratic form of governance. Individual interest and collective benefit did not always converge.

Before looking at the predicament of the Modi government, analysis of some contemporary experiences may explain the nature of such conflicts. The controversial case of land acquisition at Singur for the Tatas in West Bengal, led to the defeat of the Communist Party of India (M)-led government after an uninterrupted 35-year rule. 

The protest was initially led by, Mamata Banerjee, who gradually managed to swing public opinion in her favour. The most interesting aspect of Mamata’s movement in favour of the displaced farmers of Singur, was the widespread support the Tata project had from the intelligentsia, media and nearly all political pundits, including that of the central government in Delhi. The Congress-led coalition, where the CPI (M) was a partner, was then the ruling dispensation at the Centre. It was a time when Rahul Gandhi was moving from one downtrodden village to another, often to have food and spend the night under the watchful glare of the media. Yet neither he, nor any other leader, lent support to Mamata Banerjee. Evidently, the popular sentiment of the land losers was less important than the political equation of the day.

But the political class understood the message from Singur clearly, after the election outcome in West Bengal. It realised that in a working democracy, even the poorest of poor may end up asserting their democratic rights, even when confronted by the muscle power of the ruling elite. The election results saw Rahul Gandhi rushing to Kalahandi in support of locals agitating against bauxite mining by the Vedanta group. Why did Rahul not stage such a march to Singur but instead opted to champion the cause of Niyamgiri? The answer is simple – the political equation of the day. In West Bengal, the CPI (M) was in alliance with Congress. The Left controlled as many as 62 votes in Lok Sabha, giving Congress the majority to rule India. In contrast the Biju Janata Dal (BJD), the ruling regional party in Orissa, where Niyamgiri is located, was a rival political party. Congress wanted to loosen the stranglehold of BJD in Orissa state politics. By delaying the Vedanta project, the prospects of the state economy could be adversely affected, giving Congress a chance to score vital political points.

A similar opportunity arose on the outskirts of NOIDA in Uttar Pradesh. Bhatta Parsaul saw some farmers agitating for higher compensation for land they had earlier sold to builders. Uttar Pradesh was due for a state assembly election. The Congress had been systematically building a campaign with Rahul Gandhi at the helm. The state government led by Mayawati was losing popular appeal. Rahul fished into troubled waters, in support of the agitating farmers.

Unfortunately, in politics the same medicine, more often than not, presents different results. In Uttar Pradesh, the then ruling chief minister Mayawati lost, but shockingly for Rahul’s Congress, it was old Mulayam Yadav’s young son Akhilesh who won the people’s mandate. The Congress lost a majority of its previous seats despite Rahul’s seemingly heroic effort at Bhatta Parsaul. In Orissa, the BJD swept to power, and the Kalahandi parliament seat where Niyamgiri is located, went to the BJD. Rahul’s land agitation did not help Congress in either of the two well publicised campaigns. With the Land acquisition bill, Rahul is trying to be third time lucky.

What could be the reason for Mamata’s success and Rahul’s failure? Could it be that Rahul did not follow what another Gandhi, a more illustrious one as far as the common man is concerned, said?  Mahatma Gandhi’s message was simple, “Be the change you want to see in the world”. Mamata fits in here, Rahul does not. Even today Mamata lives the Spartan life of somebody who is always eager to fight for the poor. She may not be media savvy, but has the warmth to win the heart of a person who has nobody to turn to. In comparison Rahul operates from a higher pedestal, somebody who seems to be sullying his carefully manicured feet for the sake of the poor. Thus, even in an issue as critical as land acquisition, Rahul Gandhi fails to score.

 For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the road block to the amendment of the land acquisition bill comes from the likes of Mamata Banerjee. If he can have a convergence of views with her on these critical issues, Rahul’s Congress will again bite the dust.