Land Acquisition Bill

[AMG]

I am quoting some lines from the article you have linked us to



Who says there is no other way. I have already highlighted the way we can turn farming into a profitable enterprise even for small holding farmers. Elimination of greedy middlemen and a robust supply chain is all you need.
and before you go on ranting about the 51% figure, its from the
Is there enough income from Agri to support 51% of India's working population(which, lets conservatively put, is around 35 crore people). (51% figure from World Bank)

In your eyes, is it alright for someone who is his own boss to be turned into a daily wage laborer who will never get the daily wage set by the government while he runs from pillar to post trying to get the compensation that he was promised.

Daily wage is one of the most widely obeyed rules. Do not argue for the sake of arguing. Can I have a point by point rebuttal of post #26 on the previous page.

First the problems ailing the implementation mechanism should be removed and only then a good law should be presented.
People displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam system on the Narmada River in 1979 are still fighting for proper rehabilitation. Many were forced to take cash compensation on rates far below the market rate even when the Supreme Court had made a judgement that compensation should be land-for-land. They even went on to put a 10% income tax on the amount that was being forcibly given as compensation.

See article I've quoted in the opening of Post #26

I have nothing against land acquisition for industries and other things, but the acquisition should be just and compensation should be provided before the land gets acquired. Just tell me in which universe is it just to remove someone from their home and then make them run around for the promised compensation. How are the poor farmers supposed to provide an abode and food for his family in the meantime.

 

[m-jeri]

Devinder Sharma is a very well respected person in the matters of agriculture. I implore everyone to go and read his blog, if they can.
Everyone is talking about development. My question is why are villages excluded from it. Why even today they don't have electricity, health and education.
Let's leave that. The entrepreneurial opportunities in the sector of agriculture are huge. Why don't we see the eagerness of our govt in that. We should realize that we have already lost the battle of manufacturing to China. But the battle of becoming the world's food bowl is something we can really win if we want to. Everyone sees the growth of China, but never realize how good they are at hiding the havoc that this growth has played on their citizens. Record no of protest and suicides have been committed by farmers in China. The freedom is curtailed and the disparity between the poor and rich has only increased. I am sorry, but I am against this sort of development.

If anyone of you watches Food CIA on History TV, you would realized that the agriculture sector has massive opportunities. We recently became the biggest exporter of beef. We produce record harvests of most of our staple produces every year. In a country which has such fertile land, shouldn't the emphasis be on monetizing what we are already best at than trying to compete in a field in which we will have to claw our way from the end of the pack. We should learn from countries like UAE and play to our strengths rather than build flying castles.
I strongly believe that making agriculture more profitable is much more important and the right way to go if we truly want India to develop. We should strive to develop our villages so that moving to a city becomes a choice rather than a coercive decision as that is how it is in the developed nations across the world.

http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2014/12/why-grow-in-india-too-is-important.html?m=1

1. India is already a very good agricultural society, still our crops are not giving the money we need. And there are extremely big competing markets around. Also let me say again, we need to have a manufacturing industry.
Even our agricultural infrastructure is nothing compared to the industrialized countries.
2. We are NOT trying to compete with anyone in the start. Lion share of our equipments are being imported. For example defense. Why? We don't have the talent to make? It's us indians who are making stuff in these
tech companies abroad. Its because no one wants to invest in billions into manufacturing.
3. You are still being way too biased to agriculture. Its not bad. But it does gets bad when you shut off manufacturing. Agriculture is not capable of lifting massive population that we have above from poverty.

 

[rdst_1]

I just read the article you had quoted in post #26. Where has it been written in that article that people affected were properly rehabilitated. Instead of reading such articles it would do you good if you would read the accusations, findings and the decisions given by the Supreme Court in the numerous cases.
Why do you think farmers are apprehensive to trust the Indian govt? It's their track record which makes it impossible for the people to believe that they will be taken care of swiftly and justly.

As for your question on whether agriculture can support the 51% population, I can guarantee you it very well can. Let's not even talk about the opportunities in export which are huge because many of the well developed countries don't have the land to support their population but due to better buying power so they surely can import food which we can easily provide.
You are proposing that we stop doing what we are already good and which we can become world leaders in with just proper management and and start doing something which will only be profitable because of cheap labor. Haven't we learned anything from the Call Centre fiasco in which the major companies shifted base as soon as they found cheap labor elsewhere.
A lease based model is a much better alternative so if the companies/industries fail, the farmers can return to farming.
Also it should be asked why haven't the land that has been acquired earlier not been put to use. Right now it is just a way to hoard up on land that the industrialists are trying to do because land as an asset is only going to appreciate.

P.S - If you would like a point by point reply from me, please use multiple quote tags and write your replies outside the quotes. Right now when I select to quote your reply, it shows nothing as you have replied within the quote tags.

 

[rdst_1]

1. India is already a very good agricultural society, still our crops are not giving the money we need. And there are extremely big competing markets around. Also let me say again, we need to have a manufacturing industry.
Even our agricultural infrastructure is nothing compared to the industrialized countries.
2. We are NOT trying to compete with anyone in the start. Lion share of our equipments are being imported. For example defense. Why? We don't have the talent to make? It's us indians who are making stuff in these
tech companies abroad. Its because no one wants to invest in billions into manufacturing.
3. You are still being way too biased to agriculture. Its not bad. But it does gets bad when you shut off manufacturing. Agriculture is not capable of lifting massive population that we have above from poverty.

Yes my replies seem to be biased towards agriculture but I certainly don't want us to lag behind in other sectors. But seeing the view of the OP where he wants to shut off agriculture and start outsourcing our food supply is what made me come up for the defense of agriculture as a sector.
Yes, agriculture alone can never be the answer, but so can't be industries. Everyone knows that industries will only lead to the rich becoming richer.
We need to create a fine balance. Farming needs arable and fertile soil. Yes industries too have geographic limitations but this law takes away one of the fundamental rights of a free man and that is to have a majority decision. If the consent clause comes back, half of the people won't have a problem. Right now they feel that their land can be snatched away whenever the govt wants and that insecurity is very unnerving.
Someone I know built a house at his farm-house. Now the govt is acquiring the land and they refuse to pay for the costs incurred in building the house. How is that justified?
Everyone can see that this law is grossly biased towards industries and that is why so much hue and cry is being raised.
A perfect model would be in which the industrialists take the land on lease directly from the farmers. This ensures a steady earning source for the farmers ( which is what they are having to let go of) and their coming generations. But that would never happen because how would then they earn their insane profits to buy personal jets on birthdays.

 

[AMG]

I just read the article you had quoted in post #26. Where has it been written in that article that people affected were properly rehabilitated. Instead of reading such articles it would do you good if you would read the accusations, findings and the decisions given by the Supreme Court in the numerous cases.
Why do you think farmers are apprehensive to trust the Indian govt? It's their track record which makes it impossible for the people to believe that they will be taken care of swiftly and justly.

As for your question on whether agriculture can support the 51% population, I can guarantee you it very well can. Let's not even talk about the opportunities in export which are huge because many of the well developed countries don't have the land to support their population but due to better buying power so they surely can import food which we can easily provide.

1

You are proposing that we stop doing what we are already good and which we can become world leaders in with just proper management and and start doing something which will only be profitable because of cheap labor. Haven't we learned anything from the Call Centre fiasco in which the major companies shifted base as soon as they found cheap labor elsewhere.

2:

A lease based model is a much better alternative so if the companies/industries fail, the farmers can return to farming.
Also it should be asked why haven't the land that has been acquired earlier not been put to use. Right now it is just a way to hoard up on land that the industrialists are trying to do because land as an asset is only going to appreciate.
3:

P.S - If you would like a point by point reply from me, please use multiple quote tags and write your replies outside the quotes. Right now when I select to quote your reply, it shows nothing as you have replied within the quote tags.
4:

1: How much do you think would somebody pay for a quintal of wheat? You are reacting as if it not food, but some ****ing gold titanium alloy we are exporting.
157350000 = arable land in hectares
35000000 = people dependant on agri(51% of working population. Still a conservative estimate by all accounts)
4.49 hectare per person. What can a person grow in 4.49 hectares, and how much will he make?

2: We are good at agri? Joke of the century. 2,975 is the produce per hectare per year.
Brazil is 4,772.
Costa Rica and Ivory Coast(Least developed African countries) 3,639 and 3,054. World Bank statistics.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE NUMBERS!!!

3: I think there is a provision of return of land if project is cancelled.

4: This would do? Multi quote tags are too much of a hassle when replying to long posts.

 

[rdst_1]

1: How much do you think would somebody pay for a quintal of wheat? You are reacting as if it not food, but some ****ing gold titanium alloy we are exporting.
157350000 = arable land in hectares
35000000 = people dependant on agri(51% of working population. Still a conservative estimate by all accounts)
4.49 hectare per person. What can a person grow in 4.49 hectares, and how much will he make?

2: We are good at agri? Joke of the century. 2,975 is the produce per hectare per year.
Brazil is 4,772.
Costa Rica and Ivory Coast(Least developed African countries) 3,639 and 3,054. World Bank statistics.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE NUMBERS!!!

3: I think there is a provision of return of land if project is cancelled.

4: This would do? Multi quote tags are too much of a hassle when replying to long posts.

1) 4.5 hectares is close to what my Mamaji owns and he leads a comfortable life. He has a car, AC, washing machine etc.
What he doesn't get is regular electricity. Infact he only get 4hrs electricity every day. He has to burn diesel to use that AC in the extreme summers. Yet he is living a comfortable life. All in the 4.5 hectares he owns.
Also, this is when MSP charges are what they are. He pays his laborers more than the minimum wage along with 2 meals a day apart from a percentage of the harvest, yet is finding it difficult to find labor these days.
We as customers never pay for the grains but for the processed finished product. The govt needs to open more processing centres of it's own. If they don't, farmers should come together to form cooperatives and open processing centres themselves so that they can get the profits that other middlemen are getting now. This would not only decrease the prices of daily commodities but also reduce the vast economic disparity between the rich and poor in our country. Same thing has already been done very successfully in the Milk sector and is definitely worth attempting in the agriculture sector. I am attempting a similar thing in my area and moving farmers from traditional maize to growing vegetables in poly-houses. We will then market the vegetables ourselves under a brand name. The profit will be of each and every farmer and not of a single person/family/company.

2) Numbers can be deceiving. Please also compare the size of those african countries with ours. We also have the highest yield in milk but the average milk yield per animal is dismal. That doesn't mean it is not profitable. Amul is a 13650 crore company and exporting milk products all over the world. In fact you have said the very same thing that I've been saying. We create records despite having dismal averages. Don't you see that means there are amazing opportunities that we are wasting by not developing our agriculture.

3) Having a provision and implementing it are two very different things. And the new law/ordinance takes away this Return of Land clause. All the debaters on TV are providing solid proofs of acquired lands lying unused years after they have been acquired.

I have already provided you with figures. GMR made a profit of 1.6 lakh crores just from the Delhi Airport project.

Tell me one thing. Why does the land have to be taken away from the farmers. Why can't the industrialists take the land on lease? This would ensure a steady income for the farmers, just as they were getting from farming.

Even if the land has to be taken away, these steps are necessary -

1) Do not acquire lands which are highly fertile.
2) Consent clause should be returned. If 80% is too high, reduce it to an acceptable value but consent should be necessary.
3) The rehabilitation should happen before the land is acquired. Past instances have shown that the govt just can't be trusted to do the right thing. Also the choice should belong to the farmer as to whether he wants to receive land or cash as compensation.

Please don't think I am against development of our industrial sector. But why can't the profits be shared with the land owners whose lands are being acquired. Why should only one family become insanely rich while others lose their independence and have to get jobs.
Industrial development is important but not the cost of destroying our agriculture and I believe that the balance can definitely be achieved. What it needs is a good land acquisition bill and even more importantly impeccable planning and implementation. Even one such project will be more than enough to allay any of the fears that the farmers have and really speed up the development of industries.

 

[m-jeri]

the rich becoming richer.

A perfect model would be in which the industrialists take the land on lease directly from the farmers. This ensures a steady earning source for the farmers ( which is what they are having to let go of) and their coming generations.

This. The first part. This shows a bad attitude towards development in general.

Rich will get richer. Make no mistake. They already have the means to make that happen. Why shouldn't they? But when they do that, they will create millions of jobs or at least 100 times more job that agriculture can.
You don't think that is worthwhile?

And not to mention, when the country is gearing towards manufacturing, don't you think from the millions 's of engineers that walk out every year at least 10 will try to start a small industry? Is that not desirable? Let me assure you no one is going to take the spade and till the soil. They will sit in infosys or a ITes.

Grabbing farm lands is not desirable. But when alternatives are not there, we dont have a choice. And we as a nation cannot wait years to figure the alternative out.Like the bolded part above. I do wish governments or at least the local governments have the foresight to do that.

We need farmers and fertile farmland. But we also need manufacturing capabilities. Agriculture or farming is never capable in India to create the GDP increase or remove poverty or reduce the brain drain.

 

[rdst_1]

This. The first part. This shows a bad attitude towards development in general.

Rich will get richer. Make no mistake. They already have the means to make that happen. Why shouldn't they? But when they do that, they will create millions of jobs or at least 100 times more job that agriculture can.
You don't think that is worthwhile?

And not to mention, when the country is gearing towards manufacturing, don't you think from the millions 's of engineers that walk out every year at least 10 will try to start a small industry? Is that not desirable? Let me assure you no one is going to take the spade and till the soil. They will sit in infosys or a ITes.

Grabbing farm lands is not desirable. But when alternatives are not there, we dont have a choice. And we as a nation cannot wait years to figure the alternative out.Like the bolded part above. I do wish governments or at least the local governments have the foresight to do that.

We need farmers and fertile farmland. But we also need manufacturing capabilities. Agriculture or farming is never capable in India to create the GDP increase or remove poverty or reduce the brain drain.

Ok. Then what about leasing the land instead of acquiring it at cheap rates or giving the landowners a share of the profits instead of leasing it. It will definitely be better for the masses and ensure a steady income for the farmers.

 

[AMG]

1) 4.5 hectares is close to what my Mamaji owns and he leads a comfortable life. He has a car, AC, washing machine etc.
What he doesn't get is regular electricity. Infact he only get 4hrs electricity every day. He has to burn diesel to use that AC in the extreme summers. Yet he is living a comfortable life. All in the 4.5 hectares he owns.

And I assume he doesnt pay a penny in taxes, or for electricity, because no farmers do. So basically those 4 hours, its for free.

Also, this is when MSP charges are what they are. He pays his laborers more than the minimum wage along with 2 meals a day apart from a percentage of the harvest, yet is finding it difficult to find labor these days.

Unclear. Please rephrase.

i) We as customers never pay for the grains but for the processed finished product. The govt needs to open more processing centres of it's own. ii)If they don't, farmers should come together to form cooperatives and open processing centres themselves so that they can get the profits that other middlemen are getting now. This would not only decrease the prices of daily commodities but also reduce the vast economic disparity between the rich and poor in our country. Same thing has already been done very successfully in the Milk sector and is definitely worth attempting in the agriculture sector. I am attempting a similar thing in my area and moving farmers from traditional maize to growing vegetables in poly-houses. We will then market the vegetables ourselves under a brand name. The profit will be of each and every farmer and not of a single person/family/company.

i) correct ii) correct again, but the question is "should" We are not discussing idealism here, we are talking realism.

2) Numbers can be deceiving. Please also compare the size of those african countries with ours. We also have the highest yield in milk but the average milk yield per animal is dismal. That doesn't mean it is not profitable. Amul is a 13650 crore company and exporting milk products all over the world. In fact you have said the very same thing that I've been saying. We create records despite having dismal averages. Don't you see that means there are amazing opportunities that we are wasting by not developing our agriculture.

Brazil is twice our size, and the other two are less than half our size. So what was point again? (Work on your Geography, lol j/k)

3) Having a provision and implementing it are two very different things. And the new law/ordinance takes away this Return of Land clause. All the debaters on TV are providing solid proofs of acquired lands lying unused years after they have been acquired.

Again a classic example of people being misled by the media.
"The LARR Act, 2013 required land acquired under it which remained unutilised for five years, to be returned to the original owners or the land bank. The 2015 Bill states that the period after which unutilised land will need to be returned will be: (i) five years, or (ii) any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later."
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land and R and R/Bill Summary - LARR Bill 2015.pdf Do read it. Will clear your misconceptions.


I have already provided you with figures. GMR made a profit of 1.6 lakh crores just from the Delhi Airport project.

Tell me one thing. Why does the land have to be taken away from the farmers. Why can't the industrialists take the land on lease? This would ensure a steady income for the farmers, just as they were getting from farming.

Imagine there is an airport to be built in your area. Now every farmer will say why my land, take it from the next farmer. So that is why the govt has to step in and procure the lands.
Lease you say.How long? 10 years? After 10 years a farmer wants the land back, so we move 10000 crore worth of radars and stuff away to a new airport which will be constructed?
Also the lease model has no advantages, atleast to my mind. Or are you talking of profit sharing model? In which case all farmers would want to give land, and then again there would be corruption.
Also why rent when you can buy.


Even if the land has to be taken away, these steps are necessary -

1) Do not acquire lands which are highly fertile.
2) Consent clause should be returned. If 80% is too high, reduce it to an acceptable value but consent should be necessary.
3) The rehabilitation should happen before the land is acquired. Past instances have shown that the govt just can't be trusted to do the right thing. Also the choice should belong to the farmer as to whether he wants to receive land or cash as compensation.

My point, raised in #26,and re-raising it now, say an airport has to be built, or a factory for pharma, or whatever, now to an average farmer(by average farmer I mean the guys who protested in nandigram and whatever, not educated rich people like your relative), these are useless things, because he isnt going to use the airport. So he will deny consent. Because he will feel its useless. Also about the fertile land example, an industry can be set up where it is set up.
Again per se, it is a matter of implementation. Dont object to the bill.

Please don't think I am against development of our industrial sector. But why can't the profits be shared with the land owners whose lands are being acquired. Why should only one family become insanely rich while others lose their independence and have to get jobs.

Having to get jobs is a bad thing? And if it is for you, then dont get a job. Invest the 4x market value compensation in business, and be your own boss.

Industrial development is important but not the cost of destroying our agriculture and I believe that the balance can definitely be achieved. What it needs is a good land acquisition bill and even more importantly impeccable planning and implementation. Even one such project will be more than enough to allay any of the fears that the farmers have and really speed up the development of industries.

And I assume he doesnt pay a penny in taxes, or for electricity, because no farmers do. So basically those 4 hours, its for free.
Brazil is twice our size, and the other two are less than half our size. So what was point again?

Again a classic example of people being misled by the media.
"The LARR Act, 2013 required land acquired under it which remained unutilised for five years, to be returned to the original owners or the land bank. The 2015 Bill states that the period after which unutilised land will need to be returned will be: (i) five years, or (ii) any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later."
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land and R and R/Bill Summary - LARR Bill 2015.pdf

Imagine there is an airport to be built in your area. Now every farmer will say why my land, take it from the next farmer. So that is why the govt has to step in and procure the lands.
Lease you say.How long? 10 years? After 10 years a farmer wants the land back, so we move 10000 crore worth of radars and stuff away to a new airport which will be constructed?
Also the lease model has no advantages, atleast to my mind. Or are you talking of profit sharing model? In which case all farmers would want to give land, and then again there would be corruption.
Also why rent when you can buy.


My point, raised in #26,and re-raising it now, say an airport has to be built, or a factory for pharma, or whatever, now to an average farmer(by average farmer I mean the guys who protested in nandigram and whatever, not educated rich people like your relative), these are useless things, because he isnt going to use the airport. So he will deny consent. Because he will feel its useless. Also about the fertile land example, an industry can be set up where it is set up.
Again per se, it is a matter of implementation. Dont object to the bill.


Having to get jobs is a bad thing? And if it is for you, then dont get a job. Invest the 4x market value compensation in business, and be your own boss.


I ask of you one question? Do you think 4x market value is less?
And Please. PLEASE. FOR HEAVENS SAKE PLEASE read the bill, and dont base your arguements on news TV debate. I am trying to source the full text of the bill. In the meanwhile read the one page summary.

Also can I ask you another question? Ask your mama whether he wants his son to be a farmer? I believe the answer will be "NO!". Then ask him will he allow his land to be acquired when there is nobody frming it? The answer will be "No".
Indians have made land ownership a matter of pride instead of practicality. No matter how barren, no farmer wants to give his land. Thats why the govt has to acquire it.

 

[blr_p]

The govt needs to open more processing centres of it's own. If they don't, farmers should come together to form cooperatives and open processing centres themselves so that they can get the profits that other middlemen are getting now. This would not only decrease the prices of daily commodities but also reduce the vast economic disparity between the rich and poor in our country. Same thing has already been done very successfully in the Milk sector and is definitely worth attempting in the agriculture sector. I am attempting a similar thing in my area and moving farmers from traditional maize to growing vegetables in poly-houses. We will then market the vegetables ourselves under a brand name. The profit will be of each and every farmer and not of a single person/family/company.

How to scale it up country wide ? if it were that easy it would have been done ages ago. Milk revolution started in the seventies. The problem is funding. FDI in retail would have helped here but you were opposed to it. They managed to scare you and you bought it.

3) Having a provision and implementing it are two very different things. And the new law/ordinance takes away this Return of Land clause. All the debaters on TV are providing solid proofs of acquired lands lying unused years after they have been acquired.

The article i posted explained all of this very clearly. as to all these cases you mention i'm rather suprised to hear about them since the rules were so damn strict nobody would be interested in getting involved. So you might have land and hope to sell but there would be no buyers.

Tell me one thing. Why does the land have to be taken away from the farmers. Why can't the industrialists take the land on lease? This would ensure a steady income for the farmers, just as they were getting from farming.

if we can do that then we can figure out how to combine smaller farms into bigger ones.

Even if the land has to be taken away, these steps are necessary -

1) Do not acquire lands which are highly fertile.
2) Consent clause should be returned. If 80% is too high, reduce it to an acceptable value but consent should be necessary.
3) The rehabilitation should happen before the land is acquired. Past instances have shown that the govt just can't be trusted to do the right thing. Also the choice should belong to the farmer as to whether he wants to receive land or cash as compensation.

Figure has been reduced to 70.

Please don't think I am against development of our industrial sector. But why can't the profits be shared with the land owners whose lands are being acquired. Why should only one family become insanely rich while others lose their independence and have to get jobs.
Industrial development is important but not the cost of destroying our agriculture and I believe that the balance can definitely be achieved. What it needs is a good land acquisition bill and even more importantly impeccable planning and implementation. Even one such project will be more than enough to allay any of the fears that the farmers have and really speed up the development of industries.

Won't destroy agriculture, the difficulty with finding labour means people will look elsewhere on their own. Just that it will take a lot longer than necessary.

A good land bill is one that is interesting to those with funding. The present bill has gone no where. Attempts to improve it are being stalled on the basis of fear and misinformation. This is competitive politics at play. Each one needs to outdo the other with only one goal, their party. This is one of those topics that the opposition has decided they can rake the govt over. Does not matter which party is in power the same nonsense will continue. That is why things stagnate for as long as they do in this country.

Same arguments used to stall or neuter FDI in retail are being used in this case. Same was used to stall the nuke deal too. Make India so unattractive to investors that even Indians would rather invest abroad.

 

[rdst_1]

And I assume he doesnt pay a penny in taxes, or for electricity, because no farmers do. So basically those 4 hours, its for free.
Brazil is twice our size, and the other two are less than half our size. So what was point again?

Again a classic example of people being misled by the media.
"The LARR Act, 2013 required land acquired under it which remained unutilised for five years, to be returned to the original owners or the land bank. The 2015 Bill states that the period after which unutilised land will need to be returned will be: (i) five years, or (ii) any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later."
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Land and R and R/Bill Summary - LARR Bill 2015.pdf

Imagine there is an airport to be built in your area. Now every farmer will say why my land, take it from the next farmer. So that is why the govt has to step in and procure the lands.
Lease you say.How long? 10 years? After 10 years a farmer wants the land back, so we move 10000 crore worth of radars and stuff away to a new airport which will be constructed?
Also the lease model has no advantages, atleast to my mind. Or are you talking of profit sharing model? In which case all farmers would want to give land, and then again there would be corruption.
Also why rent when you can buy.


My point, raised in #26,and re-raising it now, say an airport has to be built, or a factory for pharma, or whatever, now to an average farmer(by average farmer I mean the guys who protested in nandigram and whatever, not educated rich people like your relative), these are useless things, because he isnt going to use the airport. So he will deny consent. Because he will feel its useless. Also about the fertile land example, an industry can be set up where it is set up.
Again per se, it is a matter of implementation. Dont object to the bill.


Having to get jobs is a bad thing? And if it is for you, then dont get a job. Invest the 4x market value compensation in business, and be your own boss.


I ask of you one question? Do you think 4x market value is less?
And Please. PLEASE. FOR HEAVENS SAKE PLEASE read the bill, and dont base your arguements on news TV debate. I am trying to source the full text of the bill. In the meanwhile read the one page summary.

Also can I ask you another question? Ask your mama whether he wants his son to be a farmer? I believe the answer will be "NO!". Then ask him will he allow his land to be acquired when there is nobody frming it? The answer will be "No".
Indians have made land ownership a matter of pride instead of practicality. No matter how barren, no farmer wants to give his land. Thats why the govt has to acquire it.

I am gonna stop replying to you if you can't stop being condescending. What do you think a farmer is? Is he a thief who loots your hard earned riches. Both me and my mamaji pay electricity bills. Where did you get the idea it is for free? And even if it were free that doesn't mean providing it for only 4 hours is good enough. Kya bheekh mil rahi hai kya.


Read about the latest land acquisition in Fatehabad where only 1x of the market rate is being given is compensation and not 4x as in the law. That is why I am telling you to worry about the implementation.

Also do you know anything about running businesses on leased land. Someone I know is running a rice sheller and has a 99 years lease on the land. In fact in the latest ordinance itself the govt has said that for all govt PPP projects the govt will remain the landowner while providing the private parties the same land on lease. Why can't the same be done in case of farmers.

If you truly want to look at things with an open mind then I am gonna link a few articles. Please go through them like I have read the ones you posted.

Land acquisition: Will farmers get a compensation of 4 times the market value

Freebies to poor is a populist measure; freebies to industries and business is economic reforms

No shortage of land, no environment clearance, massive tax holidays and still SEZs failed to perform

This guy has all the facts and figures to support what he writes and all of his articles are published in newspapers.

@blr_p - You are right that it certainly won't destroy agriculture. Please go through Devinder Sharma's blog - Ground Reality if you have the time and let me know what are your views on his opinions and articles. They contain much more facts and figures than I provide in my replies.

Edit - A few more articles worth reading IMO.

This is how the world bank destroys economies

Does high economic growth translate into employment

 

[AMG]

I am gonna stop replying to you if you can't stop being condescending. What do you think a farmer is? Is he a thief who loots your hard earned riches. Both me and my mamaji pay electricity bills. Where did you get the idea it is for free? And even if it were free that doesn't mean providing it for only 4 hours is good enough. Kya bheekh mil rahi hai kya.

1


Read about the latest land acquisition in Fatehabad where only 1x of the market rate is being given is compensation and not 4x as in the law. That is why I am telling you to worry about the implementation.

2

Also do you know anything about running businesses on leased land. Someone I know is running a rice sheller and has a 99 years lease on the land. In fact in the latest ordinance itself the govt has said that for all govt PPP projects the govt will remain the landowner while providing the private parties the same land on lease. Why can't the same be done in case of farmers.

How is a lease for 99 years better? Who will be alive after 99 years to even bother with the nitty grities. Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

If you truly want to look at things with an open mind then I am gonna link a few articles. Please go through them like I have read the ones you posted.

Land acquisition: Will farmers get a compensation of 4 times the market value

Freebies to poor is a populist measure; freebies to industries and business is economic reforms

No shortage of land, no environment clearance, massive tax holidays and still SEZs failed to perform

This guy has all the facts and figures to support what he writes and all of his articles are published in newspapers.

@blr_p - You are right that it certainly won't destroy agriculture. Please go through Devinder Sharma's blog - Ground Reality if you have the time and let me know what are your views on his opinions and articles. They contain much more facts and figures than I provide in my replies.

Edit - A few more articles worth reading IMO.

This is how the world bank destroys economies

Does high economic growth translate into employment

1: I did not want to be mean to you or anything. But thats what the majority of farmers do. You dont, well good for you. I dont see how land acquisition has anything to do with electricity though.

2: : 46 Lakh per acre http://articles.economictimes.india...1_land-acquisition-policy-land-owners-farmers

 

[blr_p]

If you truly want to look at things with an open mind then I am gonna link a few articles. Please go through them like I have read the ones you posted.

If you truly want to open your mind stop reading this nonsense and find quality articles.

Land acquisition: Will farmers get a compensation of 4 times the market value

Although the 2013 Act has still not been implemented..

what does he mean by this ? its an ACT. Its been passed in parliament that means its in force otherwise its called a BILL.

he is questioning whether farmers will get the right price or not. How does he know if according to him this act has yet to be implemented ? if they don't get the price the act states its up to the farmers to fight for it. Simple. They have recourse to the law and courts. I've seen this happen when the metro was being built in my city. One building had to be removed on MG road. I knew the owner of the shop who had been there since 1935. What was his complaint ? govt is offering 2005 market prices instead of 2009 market prices !! in the end he took the money.

Freebies to poor is a populist measure; freebies to industries and business is economic reforms

Three states in the country are on the brink of bankruptcy. Punjab, Kerela & WB. Why the last two are in their current predicament is obvious. But why is Punjab so determined to follow them i don't know. might have to do with the legacy of the insurgency.

According to the US-Indian business council therre are just 8 states that can be considered as business friendly. 8 out of 29 (!) less than one third. WHY ?

No shortage of land, no environment clearance, massive tax holidays and still SEZs failed to perform

SEZ's are created to attract business. revenue takes a hit as a result. The hope is that benefits will be created in other areas. This guy is only picking on SEZ's that did not work. What about ones that did ?

He wants to put more obstacles and slow down govt even more when it comes to granting SEZ's.

This guy has all the facts and figures to support what he writes and all of his articles are published in newspapers.

@blr_p - You are right that it certainly won't destroy agriculture. Please go through Devinder Sharma's blog - Ground Reality if you have the time and let me know what are your views on his opinions and articles. They contain much more facts and figures than I provide in my replies.

Edit - A few more articles worth reading IMO.

Not impressed by what he is saying. Its like a throwback to pre liberalisation era. He forgets that there are a lot of aspiring young people that would like to improve their lives and have voted this govt in on that basis.

This is how the world bank destroys economies

You ever hear leaders talk about good governance ? where do you think that line comes from. it comes as one of the conditions to avail a world bank loan. see, commercial banks won't lend to govt, getting a return will take forever. So the world bank is what does the funding at easier terms. One of their conditions is good governance. A lack of governance is what kills economies, it leads to instability and even war.

India's position on WB's tables when it comes to ease of doing business are abysmal. We have a govt that wants to get us into the top 50 from bottom of the league. Stop blaming the world bank, start asking what is wrong with US!

Shining India was about making India a destination for investment. The investment policy followed by the previous NDA was what allowed us to continue growing despite UPA coming to office as they could not do anything as the commies kept blocking them. Then when they won their next term, the industrialists started investing abroad.

His take on China is wrong too, they've grown at double digits for close to two decades. To maintain their growth they have to go after vested interests. That will be a tough job.

China is proof that we can do better. The fact that an authoritarian govt can do better than a democratic one proves the problem is clearly with our policies. There is no other way to explain it.

Does high economic growth translate into employment

The point here is about jobless growth. This is an issue. GDP figures have been revised recently. on Jan 30 GDP rate jumped from 4.9 to 6.4 or is it 7+%. Does it feel like we have such a high growth rate. No, but it does not mean the figure is wrong. It means job weren't created to the extent that such a growth rate would indicate. What this means is we need set targets higher. We need to become more attractive to the sort of investment that does lead to more jobs not create obstacles. That is why infrastructure and manufacturing are being touted by the govt. they employ much more lower skilled people than IT ever could.

 

[rdst_1]

If you truly want to open your mind stop reading this nonsense and find quality articles.

Please link some articles, blogs etc. which can help shape my opinion.

Although the 2013 Act has still not been implemented..

what does he mean by this ? its an ACT. Its been passed in parliament that means its in force otherwise its called a BILL.

he is questioning whether farmers will get the right price or not. How does he know if according to him this act has yet to be implemented ? if they don't get the price the act states its up to the farmers to fight for it. Simple. They have recourse to the law and courts. I've seen this happen when the metro was being built in my city. One building had to be removed on MG road. I knew the owner of the shop who had been there since 1935. What was his complaint ? govt is offering 2005 market prices instead of 2009 market prices !! in the end he took the money.

The way of calculating the compensation hasn't been changed in the bill. Only the amount has been increased by 4x. With his calculations he has shown that you actually won't be receiving 4x the market rate. By the implementation comment, he means that since the passing of the bill, there has yet to be a case of land acquisition in which the terms of the new bill have to be implemented. As you can see from your friend's experience the govt never does what it promises in the bills and even after fighting sometimes you have to settle for the injustice you have been served.
You are saying that if he is correct, farmers can fight for it. I am sorry but I have a problem with that and so have many other farmers.

SEZ's are created to attract business. revenue takes a hit as a result. The hope is that benefits will be created in other areas. This guy is only picking on SEZ's that did not work. What about ones that did ?

He wants to put more obstacles and slow down govt even more when it comes to granting SEZ's.

My question is why are the land from those failed SEZs not returned back to the farmers it was taken from at the same price. Why are apartments being allowed to be built over there and being sold to middle class at exorbitant rates.
Also there have been cases where companies stop using the facilities as soon as the tax holidays are over.
Let me know what are your thoughts on the leasing model considering govt are themselves going to employ it to build govt schools, hospitals etc.

Not impressed by what he is saying. Its like a throwback to pre liberalisation era. He forgets that there are a lot of aspiring young people that would like to improve their lives and have voted this govt in on that basis.

I agree that his article advice a cautious approach but he advises the same for agriculture. According to him, it is necessary that growth is sustainable instead of astronomical.

You ever hear leaders talk about good governance ? where do you think that line comes from. it comes as one of the conditions to avail a world bank loan. see, commercial banks won't lend to govt, getting a return will take forever. So the world bank is what does the funding at easier terms. One of their conditions is good governance. A lack of governance is what kills economies, it leads to instability and even war.

India's position on WB's tables when it comes to ease of doing business are abysmal. We have a govt that wants to get us into the top 50 from bottom of the league. Stop blaming the world bank, start asking what is wrong with US!

Shining India was about making India a destination for investment. The investment policy followed by the previous NDA was what allowed us to continue growing despite UPA coming to office as they could not do anything as the commies kept blocking them. Then when they won their next term, the industrialists started investing abroad.

This is exactly the issue that people like me have too. You are saying yourself that businesses won't invest in India because of bad governance. So why is the same issue not relevant when it comes to land acquisition. Why can't the farmers be afraid of all the earlier failures. Or is it that only businesses have the right to protect their future interests.



Despite having all these doubt and far due to the incompetence of previous governments, I can see what you are trying to say. I agree with you that jobs will create growth and not the other way around like so many others believe.
So the govt should definitely be given a chance to revive our manufacturing sector. Like I said in a previous post, even one good implementation of the law will be good enough to end any opposition.

 

[AMG]

@blr_p
Dude. Forget it. If a person believes that agri can support 51% of the population, then there is no point to argue with him.

 

[blr_p]

Please link some articles, blogs etc. which can help shape my opinion.

Start with the one i posted. The idea is that the previous bill whilst a good move didn't provide a way to actually exploit it. it provided a framework for which land could be acquired. This govt isn't throwing it out they are tweaking it to make it more workable.

The way of calculating the compensation hasn't been changed in the bill. Only the amount has been increased by 4x. With his calculations he has shown that you actually won't be receiving 4x the market rate.

Might require more checking on that one.

By the implementation comment, he means that since the passing of the bill, there has yet to be a case of land acquisition in which the terms of the new bill have to be implemented.

because there were no takers. Somebody interested in selling could not sell and a buyer would not risk it.

As you can see from your friend's experience the govt never does what it promises in the bills and even after fighting sometimes you have to settle for the injustice you have been served.
You are saying that if he is correct, farmers can fight for it. I am sorry but I have a problem with that and so have many other farmers.

The guy got three appeals before it was disposed off. Years before the UPA's bill even got passed. This is why it takes forever to build the metro because some areas are locked up in court, about two years to settle. I bluntly told the guy that he did not get screwed. I thought he was getting a pittance, far from it. Course he disagreed, maybe he did not even want the money but just the spot. what to do.

My question is why are the land from those failed SEZs not returned back to the farmers it was taken from at the same price.

The farmers sold that land the new owner decided to sell it off, i'm not familiar with these details. But the farmers are out of the picture i'd have thought.

Why are apartments being allowed to be built over there and being sold to middle class at exorbitant rates.

because basic infrastructure has been constructed and once that happens the land is worth much more. Who paid for that infrastructure ? the developer not the farmers.

Also there have been cases where companies stop using the facilities as soon as the tax holidays are over.

They are free to do so. Why did the govt not extend the tax holiday.

Let me know what are your thoughts on the leasing model considering govt are themselves going to employ it to build govt schools, hospitals etc.

PPP model has not worked so well. Can it be improved is what we are waiting to see. Ideally, the private sector does this but to get the ball rolling the govt is agreeing to provide a start. Thing is what happens to these places after that happens. do they remain viable or not.

I agree that his article advice a cautious approach but he advises the same for agriculture. According to him, it is necessary that growth is sustainable instead of astronomical.

I don't know what his notion of astronomical is but we need to grow at 8% to provide employment to 12 million young people that enter the work force every year. We need to do that for the next two decades. it's a really hard job to do. Since its going to take that long, the best time to start is now.

This is exactly the issue that people like me have too. You are saying yourself that businesses won't invest in India because of bad governance. So why is the same issue not relevant when it comes to land acquisition. Why can't the farmers be afraid of all the earlier failures. Or is it that only businesses have the right to protect their future interests.

The legislation before was loosely defined and had ambiguity. Then the UPA tried to introduce clarity but it wasn't workable. The hope is this upcoming bill will do it better. There are no guarantees. We will have to see. But i'm not going to oppose when they are trying to make an effort to do so.

Despite having all these doubt and far due to the incompetence of previous governments, I can see what you are trying to say. I agree with you that jobs will create growth and not the other way around like so many others believe.
So the govt should definitely be given a chance to revive our manufacturing sector. Like I said in a previous post, even one good implementation of the law will be good enough to end any opposition.

You can have growth without jobs. The trick is to attract growth into areas that produce more jobs. We are going to make mistakes given we've not tried this before. But there will also be lessons to learn from.[DOUBLEPOST=1425166923][/DOUBLEPOST]

@blr_p
Dude. Forget it. If a person believes that agri can support 51% of the population, then there is no point to argue with him.

His point is about diluting protections. The question is what good are those protections if there are no buyers ?

His assumption is now every farmer will be screwed. I don't think its that clear cut. There are people that will sell and others that won't. many of these places don't have any development or any interest because nothing can be done besides growing food inefficiently. Even that is getting hard to do because labour is hard to come by. We did this for a long time. Does the picture get better or stay the same for another generation.

 

[AMG]

Japan doesnt do much agriculture, and focuses only on Industry.

And look how fast they developed, even after being virtually finished after WW2.

 

[blr_p]

When building a road land is required. Now lets say they go after people whose property is directly where th road will be, offer them the going price. Road gets built. people whose property is adjacent see its value increase ten fold.

Who will sell first ?

 

[blr_p]

Please link some articles, blogs etc. which can help shape my opinion.

How about this ?

The man has lined up many billions from the Japanese to build infrastructure.

 

[raj_pol]

On a slightly O.T if we can use tax-payer's money on such stupid projects like Kingfisher airlines I will be happier as a tax paying citizen to see my money being used to save the lives of the farmer's who are in distress. Of course this has to be a one time effort but far better than corrupt business.

The idea that business creates millions of jobs is bullshit and one only needs to look at the developed countries of US, Europe and now China to understand the truth. One should read a little bit of Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman to actually understand the economics (or lack of economics) about so many of our modern day business fundamentals. Capital in the 21st Century is a fantastic book that exposes the hype behind the ridiculous 7-8% growth theories with actual numbers for the past 3 centuries which is impossible to disprove.

A Land Acquisition Bill is necessary but then adequate compensation for farmer's is also necessary and from what I see in the modern world that sadly will not be true.