Business Economics & Services Team
Hasty Ordinances
A heated debate is on about the hastiness of ordinances issued by the government to give effect to the important bills stalled in Parliament on account of the pandemonium orchestrated by the opposition parties. While there is near consensus on the insurance ordinance, the opinion seems to be divided on the one on land acquisition.
It is more due to the likely misuse of the provisions of the legislation, which can go against the interest of the farmers and other vulnerable sections of the society, who can be victims of land acquisition. The history is a testimony to that. In 1894, the British enacted the land acquisition bill as a tool to expand their colonial ambitions by taking over chunks of land masses from natives mostly on flimsy ground, with almost nil or grossly inadequate compensation. The colonial hangover continued even after independence. That served the interests of the ruling masters and their cohorts.
Undoubtedly, the step taken by the lat UPA government was more dictated by vote bank politics. But it had its own advantages. It was a break from the past trail of exploitative governance to a more equitable dispensation by providing the people who are affected by acquisition of land more compensation and also making the very process of acquisition on flimsy ground more difficult. The new act has not even worked for one year. And yet, the government has decided to amend the act on the ground that the legislation has proved to be a stumbling ground for land take over for productive purposes.
But the fact is that the government has yielded to the pressure exerted by vested interests, who stand to gain from the new dispensation. It is a known fact that many state governments have freely or at a throwaway prices, given land for many industries. The land acquired by corporations in invest melas conducted at regular intervals by the state governments is a case in point. It is instructive to have a study undertaken to find out how such huge parcels of land have been put to proper use, how many such land has been sold and how much of land has been put to other uses.
It is also instructive to evolve a new compensation matrix, which not only calls upon the acquirer to pay adequate compensation but also to ensure that release of compensation is staggered in such a way that the affected persons and their generations to come get the compensation in perpetuity. The best way is to make them stakeholders in the project. There are some reservations voiced against such schemes because in future there will be spate of litigation among the heirs. This can be resolved by naming who would be beneficiaries in the future and in what proposition. Also, such compensations should be indexed against inflation.
There is a lot of merit in evolving such a compensation matrix. Past experience indicates that one time compensation leads to conspicuous consumption and the beneficiaries blow up the compensation within no time, leaving the next generation in penury.
Therefore, what important is to have a wider debate on the pros and cons of the desired amendment of the bill and passing it through an informed debate, even if it takes time. That is what democracy is. .
Hasty Ordinances
A heated debate is on about the hastiness of ordinances issued by the government to give effect to the important bills stalled in Parliament on account of the pandemonium orchestrated by the opposition parties. While there is near consensus on the insurance ordinance, the opinion seems to be divided on the one on land acquisition.
It is more due to the likely misuse of the provisions of the legislation, which can go against the interest of the farmers and other vulnerable sections of the society, who can be victims of land acquisition. The history is a testimony to that. In 1894, the British enacted the land acquisition bill as a tool to expand their colonial ambitions by taking over chunks of land masses from natives mostly on flimsy ground, with almost nil or grossly inadequate compensation. The colonial hangover continued even after independence. That served the interests of the ruling masters and their cohorts.
Undoubtedly, the step taken by the lat UPA government was more dictated by vote bank politics. But it had its own advantages. It was a break from the past trail of exploitative governance to a more equitable dispensation by providing the people who are affected by acquisition of land more compensation and also making the very process of acquisition on flimsy ground more difficult. The new act has not even worked for one year. And yet, the government has decided to amend the act on the ground that the legislation has proved to be a stumbling ground for land take over for productive purposes.
But the fact is that the government has yielded to the pressure exerted by vested interests, who stand to gain from the new dispensation. It is a known fact that many state governments have freely or at a throwaway prices, given land for many industries. The land acquired by corporations in invest melas conducted at regular intervals by the state governments is a case in point. It is instructive to have a study undertaken to find out how such huge parcels of land have been put to proper use, how many such land has been sold and how much of land has been put to other uses.
It is also instructive to evolve a new compensation matrix, which not only calls upon the acquirer to pay adequate compensation but also to ensure that release of compensation is staggered in such a way that the affected persons and their generations to come get the compensation in perpetuity. The best way is to make them stakeholders in the project. There are some reservations voiced against such schemes because in future there will be spate of litigation among the heirs. This can be resolved by naming who would be beneficiaries in the future and in what proposition. Also, such compensations should be indexed against inflation.
There is a lot of merit in evolving such a compensation matrix. Past experience indicates that one time compensation leads to conspicuous consumption and the beneficiaries blow up the compensation within no time, leaving the next generation in penury.
Therefore, what important is to have a wider debate on the pros and cons of the desired amendment of the bill and passing it through an informed debate, even if it takes time. That is what democracy is. .
