LARR Act 2013- The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013
A good article thatdiscusses the state's dual policies (w.r.t to land) which takes rights away from certain citizens"farmers" to benefit other certain citizens"industrialists" at the cost of democracy and environment.
When amendment amounts to nullification
Silent Points:
1. The attempt to find a generally acceptable compromise which would reconcile the conflicting interests of industry and farmers/landowners began in the 1980s and continued intermittently. Eventually this resulted in the LARR Act 2013. The LARR Act 2013 was not a hasty doctrinaire - as per writer - Ramaswamy R. Iyer - a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.
2. The ruling party "Bharatiya Janata Party (National Democratic Alliance)" was a party to the passing of the 2013 Act. Barely a year later, with little experience of its working, that Act is now regarded as wholly retrograde, unacceptable and in need of root-and-branch “reform”.
3. By using the amendment route, the state has wholly accepted one perception of the conflict, and sought to undo the compromise embodied in the 2013 Act without a review. Apart from the merits of the ordinance, this is an authoritarian, partisan and undemocratic procedure. (What was the urgency for an the amendement route when lots of allready acquaried land for industry is lying unsed for decades? Various SEZs are example - Arvind)
4. It is curious that those who argue for reducing the role of the state and “deregulating” industry want the state to take land away from farmers and give it to industry. (The dual policies for two class of citizens - Arvind)
5. The acquisition of land means not merely loss of land and homestead, but also loss of livelihoods, loss of a community and cultural continuities, loss of a way of life. This is bound to be a traumatic experience. (Sudden shot of easy money changes the livelihood of people at the cost of the loss of a sustainable source of encome and loss of "a way of life" - One can easily relate the rise of criminal cases in the areas where land was acquaried - The villages of Gurgaon, Faridabad etc. - Arvind)
6. By way of a digression it may be added that property rights are presumably sacrosanct in capitalism, but evidently this does not apply to a farmer’s right to his or her land. The property of an industrialist is inviolable, and nationalisation is socialism and therefore anathema; but the acquisition of land from a farmer — which corresponds to nationalisation in the industrial sector — is evidently good capitalism!
Dear Jatlanders it's our social responsibility to create awaireness amongst masses for the equal rights to the "farmers". They are also citizens of the state.
A good article thatdiscusses the state's dual policies (w.r.t to land) which takes rights away from certain citizens"farmers" to benefit other certain citizens"industrialists" at the cost of democracy and environment.
When amendment amounts to nullification
Silent Points:
1. The attempt to find a generally acceptable compromise which would reconcile the conflicting interests of industry and farmers/landowners began in the 1980s and continued intermittently. Eventually this resulted in the LARR Act 2013. The LARR Act 2013 was not a hasty doctrinaire - as per writer - Ramaswamy R. Iyer - a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India.
2. The ruling party "Bharatiya Janata Party (National Democratic Alliance)" was a party to the passing of the 2013 Act. Barely a year later, with little experience of its working, that Act is now regarded as wholly retrograde, unacceptable and in need of root-and-branch “reform”.
3. By using the amendment route, the state has wholly accepted one perception of the conflict, and sought to undo the compromise embodied in the 2013 Act without a review. Apart from the merits of the ordinance, this is an authoritarian, partisan and undemocratic procedure. (What was the urgency for an the amendement route when lots of allready acquaried land for industry is lying unsed for decades? Various SEZs are example - Arvind)
4. It is curious that those who argue for reducing the role of the state and “deregulating” industry want the state to take land away from farmers and give it to industry. (The dual policies for two class of citizens - Arvind)
5. The acquisition of land means not merely loss of land and homestead, but also loss of livelihoods, loss of a community and cultural continuities, loss of a way of life. This is bound to be a traumatic experience. (Sudden shot of easy money changes the livelihood of people at the cost of the loss of a sustainable source of encome and loss of "a way of life" - One can easily relate the rise of criminal cases in the areas where land was acquaried - The villages of Gurgaon, Faridabad etc. - Arvind)
6. By way of a digression it may be added that property rights are presumably sacrosanct in capitalism, but evidently this does not apply to a farmer’s right to his or her land. The property of an industrialist is inviolable, and nationalisation is socialism and therefore anathema; but the acquisition of land from a farmer — which corresponds to nationalisation in the industrial sector — is evidently good capitalism!
Dear Jatlanders it's our social responsibility to create awaireness amongst masses for the equal rights to the "farmers". They are also citizens of the state.