Why the debate on Land Bill must move past 'industry vs farmer'

The tragedy of Gajender Singh, the farmer from Rajasthan and a father of three children, hanging himself from a tree at AAP’s Kisan rally has shocked the country. It has brought to the fore the distress that has engulfed rural India with unseasonal rains and hailstorms destroying crops across states. It will also bring the debate on the Land Acquisition ordinance introduced by the Modi government under closer public scrutiny as it has faced stiff opposition from various political parties and farmer bodies.

The biggest debate in our country and our politically conscious circles these days is over the Land Ordinance. One side seeks to force the ordinance down everyone’s throat because it believes that the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 had made it nearly impossible to acquire land for many purposes, particularly for industry. The other side seeks to paint the new Land Ordinance as the act of a government that wants to enable fat cats to usurp the land of farmers without their consent. Which side is Black and which is White depends upon where you stand. 

This is a farcical debate because the side batting for free markets and industrialization is not only supportive of this ordinance but also contemptuous of the opposing side for being Luddites. It is farcical because as Rohit Pradhan has pointed out in one of his pieces, the side batting for the ordinance is also the side batting for unfettered powers to the state, disregarding the individual right to property, something that is inimical to a society that favors free markets. At the same time, an assortment of leftist or left-leaning parties, some of which have not acceded to an individual right to property, are now batting for it.

The second half of UPA-II, in particular, saw it as being portrayed as a povertarian government, acting only to dole out more subsidies while doing precious little to help industry grow. The Modi juggernaut was built on the foundation of widespread anger against UPA-II for having ignored industrial growth and middle-class interest. As a result of this campaign, the Modi government is now seen as a dispensation representing industrial or urban interests. It has not helped that all agriculture or rural India related schemes have been portrayed as wasteful by the wider Modi supporting ecosystem.

The Union government tried to embellish its pro-industry and reforms image by attempting to push through a Land Ordinance that disregarded farmers’ (and tribals’) right to choose. The opposition tries its best to hammer home the point that this government represents only industrial interests. In his speech in Parliament on Monday, Rahul Gandhi took broad swipes at the government, calling it a representative of industrialists, a government of the so-called “suited and booted”. He was right to point out that 60% of India’s population depends on agriculture for employment (the actual number is 54.6%). That there is widespread opposition to the ordinance from this section of the population can now be conceded. The government might argue that they have been misled but it will have to assuage the worries of this large section of the population. 

The policy and governance agenda must be mindful of the wider socio-political environment in the country. The Prime Minister and his government are right to try and make it easier to do business but who does it help if the first step that he has taken, threatens to derail his entire governance agenda? Moreover, is land even the biggest roadblock for reviving growth or making industrial expansion a reality? One report highlights that nearly 30-50% of land acquired by states lies unused while another shows nearly 50% of land acquired for SEZs between 2006-13 lies unused. With such land banks at hand, perhaps it would help in governance if a wider consensus is created over land reforms while taking note of a farmer’s right to property.

Mazdoor is a 1983 Hindi film starring Dilip Kumar as a foreman in a mill. It portrayed the struggles of honest mill workers against unscrupulous mill owners. It arrived towards the end of the longest – lasting many months – and most devastating mill strike in Bombay, an event that still casts a long shadow over Bombay, now Mumbai. The strike destroyed Bombay’s mills, disemboweled its working class neighborhoods, and gave rise to real estate battles in which the underworld played a starring role. Bombay became a victim of popular, self-righteous battles that neither helped the workers nor the industry.

The government and the opposition must take note that this binary “industry vs farmer” debate threatens our future. India cannot leave behind more than half of its population even as they are painted as impediments to development, nor can it afford vilification of its industrialists. Nearly 13 million people need to be employed every year and agriculture cannot sustain such a large workforce. While it is important to note that a high percentage of your population depends upon agriculture, it is also humbling to find that it contributes only about 13-14% to GDP. Can India afford the sluggish pace of growth of the 1970s and ’80s when private enterprise was frowned upon? Can India afford more Bombays of 1982-83? 

The film Mazdoor is emblematic of how a popular narrative fanned by films nearly killed a thriving city, or at least reduced it to a pale shadow of its former self. Do our politicians, economists and intellectuals have the foresight to prevent the replay of similar battles now?

India needs industrialisation, it needs labour and land reforms, and it needs an agenda for India. Industrialists and profit are not dirty words, but neither is social justice. It also needs farming to be lucrative. We can ill afford a lack of industrial growth or widespread income disparity; both hurt us as a nation in the long run.

But should this come at the cost of agriculturists? That question -- of balancing the two seemingly divergent interests -- of industry and agriculture is what the political leadership, and particularly the government, must find an early answer to.