Land-buy recos have derailed industry's debate: Seshasayee

NC Saxena, member, National Advisory Committee and R Seshasayee, executive vice-chairman, Ashok Leyland  and  former president, CII presented their views on CNBC-TV18 about the recommendations regarding land acquisition by the Standing Parliamentary Committee.

While Saxena throws light on the benefit that  should accrue for those dependant on the land, Seshasayee is concerned about the underlying message emphasising the negative influence of industry.
He says that the recommendations had "knocked the bottom off" industry's debate on improving the acquisition process. Below is an edited transcript of the discussion on CNBC-TV18. Also watch the accompanying videos. Q: How should the Standing Committee's recommendations be viewed? Saxena: There are three parties involved – industry, land owners and the poor who are dependent on land and act as labour.
Now industry could buy land directly from the farmer as proposed by the Standing Committee.But the landless labourer suffers because he doesn’t get any money whereas in the Bill it was provided that he would also be covered through a rehabilitation package.
The other point is that industry will suffer in such cases because in central and eastern India the land records are in a very bad shape, industry will just not know from whom to buy and therefore they would have to depend upon land mafia or intermediaries, which is not a good idea.
The third point is that in private negotiations it is seen that the small farmers and marginal farmers are the ones who sell their land at a very cheap price and it is the large farmers who hold out and they get a good price.
So, therefore within the same area there would be lot of variation from farmer to farmer.
Fourthly, tribals and other such poor communities have no idea about land markets, the proposal of the committee maybe okay for Punjab, Haryana or western Uttar Pradesh or Greater Noida. Q: What is your reading at the end of what has been put out by the Standing Committee report? Are its recommendations better for the industry than the original Bill or do is industry in a worse situation? Seshasayee: From my limited understanding of what I have seen, industry certainly must be very concerned. The message being sent out by the recommendations of the Parliamentary panel is that, 'industry is not for public good, irrigation is, schooling is, health is, but industry is not so important, it is not for the public good'.
That to my mind is an extremely disturbing message. In a way it will set the clock back because for many decades industry was for public good and state governments acquired lands for industrial purposes.
So, the debate which started as to what should be the obligation for industry in terms of R&R, in terms of how much value to be paid had its bottom knocked out by the message that industry is not for public good. Q: The committee goes a step further than the original Bill. The original Bill says that industry cannot acquire multi-crop land. The Bill also proposes that industry cannot acquire agricultural land or acquire land in tribal areas? Saxena: That is not a good way to present the argument because land would be needed for a lot of industries to mine the minerals available in those areas. So, therefore what needs to be seen is what the tribals have to gaining from such a proposition.
_PAGEBREAK_
So, therefore we proposed that not only 80% of the people have to say yes and that there is no forcible acquisition. Secondly, the landless people will also benefit.
Thirdly, people will get monthly income for 20 years. Fourthly, whenever land is sold again, as it often happens in cases of urbanisation, the people would get a certain percentage.
So, all these clauses were to ensure that the people from whom the land is being bought are winners at the same time as the land is made available. Q: So you're saying this isn't equitable as far as the farmer is concerned. It hasn't actually made life any better for industry. So are we stuck somewhere in the middle? Saxena: I feel it's a lose-lose situation that is being proposed. It should be made a win-win where industry as well as the farmers and the people who are dependent on the land should be able to gain because industrialisation and urbanisation add value to land, are more labour-intensive than agriculture.
Therefore from such a proposition it is quite possible and feasible to make such a law where everyone gains and that was the attempt of the Bill, but unfortunately the committee has not agreed. Q: The definition of public purpose has been tightened, industry has been kept out altogether as far as PPP and public purpose projects are concerned. Given that situation, even the fact that the mandatory R&R has been done away with, what difference does that really make? Seshasayee: It makes a big difference. The timing is very wrong because the news is coming at a stage when there is a lot of gloom and market sentiments are poor.
Though this message from the Parliamentary panel can’t be inspiring, I am worried about the practical implication of this which is that large industries will require large tracts of land and given the fact that land holding is extremely divided in this country and will result in the entry of intermediaries and the land mafia acting as a substitute for what has been already been done for many years in terms of government acquisition - going through the process, settling issues relating to the title of the property regardless of the acquisition procedure.
So all this will set the clock back which is extremely worrying for the industry.
My second worry is that the marking of the difference between agricultural land and non-agricultural land will require governmental intervention.
Unless the state governments are clear about that policy, industry is going to be at the mercy of the government and that destroys any possibility of integrated development. Q: Clearly you seem to be disappointed with the recommendations of the Standing Committee? Saxena: Yes, I am quite disappointed. Q: You believe that if the Standing Committee's recommendations were to be accepted, industry would be far worse off? Seshasayee: With due respect to the parliamentarians, when industry was debating the finer aspects of what the acquisition procedure should be, the bottom has been knocked off and I think that is a very disturbing trend indeed.