- The second point here I would like to talk about is Land Acquisition. A lot has been talked about the rights of farmers, low cost of land, improper funds to buy the land, human rights and all.
Not undermining the genuine cases of human rights violation, farmers concerns and rights I would say that in India anything whether it is for the development faces a stiff opposition.
Take the example of China, if any road or bridge is to be built, it will be made on time, no matter what. In India it requires approval from many organizations. To put it more precisely let me use a paragraph written by Shashi Tharoor.
China started its liberalization a good decade and a half before India, shot up faster, hit double-digit growth when India was still hovering around 5%, and with compound growth, has put itself in a totally different league from India, continuing to grow faster from a larger base. And it's also that the two countries' systems are totally dissimilar. If China wants to build a new six-lane expressway, it can bulldoze its way past any number of villages in its path; in India, if you want to widen a two-lane road, you could be tied up in court for a dozen years over compensation entitlements. When China built the Three Gorges dam, it created a 660-kilometer long reservoir that necessitated the displacement of a staggering 2 million people, all accomplished in 15 years without a fuss in the interests of generating electricity; when India began the Narmada Dam project, aiming to bring irrigation, drinking water and power to millions, it has spent 34 years (so far) fighting environmental groups, human rights activists, and advocates for the displaced all the way to the Supreme Court, while still being thwarted in the streets by the protesters of the Narmada Bachao Andolan. That is how it should be; we are a fractious democracy, China is not. But let us not even pretend we can compete in the global growth stakes with China.
Nevertheless, here I don’t want to compare China and India. My point here is if an infertile land is used for industrial purpose given proper compensation to the landowners making sure about its livelihood, is it not justifiable? Why do Human Rights activists always have to stay against it?
It is absolutely clear that when the economy is going global you need to switch to the conventional means to earn livelihood. Take the example of the largest economy, USA where agriculture contributes to mere 1.2% to economy and services 77%. While in India it 18% for agriculture and 60% for services.
India has always been an agrarian economy but the value and worth of the land should be evaluated if we want progress with our limited resources. Here I am in no favor of converting all the fertile and agricultural land to malls, complexes or residential hubs. But for those who are not, make use of it. I am also against to those government bureaucrats mediating the deal between poor, ignorant farmers and big business houses (latest example of HUDA) and making lots of money increasing corruption and exploiting farmers of their due.
I am hopeful that the upcoming “LandAcquisition Amendment Act Bill 2010” will give farmers the compensation they deserve for their land.
A lot of innovation is also required to improve the quality of our produce, the amount of production so that we can become self sufficient. Unless we improve it, the whole Delhi will continue consuming vegetable and fruits produced in the filth and scum of the river Yamuna.
To sum it all, India still has a lot of agricultural land, provided it is used effectively. The optimization of land will not only save the lives of many Nathas’ but also create more employment opportunities (India requires 10 lakh jobs to be generated a year). Unless there are industries and services where does employment come from?
I totally agree with the grim situation in India as shown in the movie, but that is the problem, Where is the solution? I have tried to put my views on this problem. Do you have any solution?
To be continued in the next part with the second problem: Party Politics.
Thanks for reading!