Asian Farmers’ Visit to Karnataka’s Natural Farms

Niloshree Bhattacharya
Stephanie Wang

La Via Campesina ,Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) and South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM) are organising a six days programme from 1st -6th November 2011, where farmers coming from countries like Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Nepal will be visiting natural farms in and around Mysore, Mandya and Chamrajnagara in Karnataka followed by a seminar on the 6th of November in Mysore to learn about methods and benefits of Zero budget natural farming(ZBNF). Experts like Peter Rosset from Mexico, Subhash Palekar and Partap Agarwal will be speaking on agro-ecology and natural farming as ways in which farmers can resist corporate control over agriculture. Natural farmers of Karnataka will also share their real experiences. When we are witnessing increasing farmer suicides and governments are creating a corridor for corporate powers to control seeds and farming practices there have been attempts to discover alternatives to chemical farming. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), organic farming, Masanobu Fukouka method of farming are farming practices that aim for sustainable agriculture with low cost and good yield.

Natural farming is not a new concept, but a philosophy and practice that can be associated to the earliest stages of agriculture. Indigenous and forest people still treasure the wisdom of the unity of man with nature, but we have lost it in the course of civilization. Organic farming is one attempt to free ourselves from chemicals, but, it is still labour intensive and promotes the addition of foreign organic fertilizers and compost to enhance soil fertility. The main idea of natural farming is that farming should be left to nature itself; it should be simple and low-cost.

The origin of ‘modern’ natural farming is generally associated with Masanobu Fukuoka from Japan who started his experiments in 1938. In India, the first documented experience of natural farming is known as the ‘Rasulia Experience’. When Partap Aggarwal took the coordination of The Friends Rural Center (FRC) in Rasulia (FRC), Madhya Pradesh, he introduced natural farming to which he gave an Indian name: Rishi Kheti. The abandon of chemicals and machines was first perceived as a return to primitivism, both by public and the FRC members. But in 1984, FRC published the Indian edition of Masanobu Fukuoka’s The One Straw Revolution, bringing national and international recognition and attention to Rishi Kheti. Inspired by this example, many farmers who visited Rasulia returned to their lands and switched to natural farming.

Since then, different methods of natural farming have been developed in India. In Karnataka, Subhash Palekar’s Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is the most popular method, with hundreds of followers claiming success. Directly inspired by Fukuoka’s farming philosophy, Kailash Murthy’s natural farm in Kollegal is another successful example which shows that natural farming can and ought to be recognized as a sustainable and accessible alternative to conventional and organic farming.

The central idea of ZBNF is that no monetary investment is necessary to be a successful natural farmer. Indeed, 98 to 98.5% of the nutrients that plants need to grow are taken from the air, water and sunlight. The other 1.5 to 2% of nutrients is available at the root zone of the plant. Through seed autonomy or farmers’ managed seed banks, self-made organic microbial pesticides, as well as a reduced amount of labour, farmers can grow nutritious food without depending on bank loans or other money lenders. The first years of transition from chemical to natural farming will manifest in decreasing yields. But after a couple of years, yields will be equal or superior to those obtained with chemical or conventional farming. The only mandatory component of ZBNF is a native breed of cattle, which will provide its precious dung and urine. According to Palekar, one native cow can sustain up to 30 acres.

We will publish series of materials and reports of the field visits will be shared. Please follow the blog posts. For further details contact: Nandini: 9242489627, Chukki Nanjundaswamy: 9845066156, Kannaiyan: 9444989543, Ashlesha: 9900200771, Niloshree: 8880526005

Indian Farmer's demands

Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movement

Road No. 2, A – 33, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi – 110 037, India

Tel: 011-26783000, 26784000; Fax: 011-26785001; Email: yudhvir55@yahoo.com

===================================================================================================================================

18th October 2011

To,

Shri Manmohan Singh ji

Hon'ble Prime Minister of India

New Delhi

Dear Sir,

                                    

We the Indian farmers are writing to you to bring your attention to the disastrous situation of the state of farming and rural India. The UPA government is promoting policies of runaway industrialization, privatization and urbanization directed at increased elite consumption at a time when we are facing a looming climate threat, food price inflation and increasing hunger. Land needed to produce food is increasingly turning into elite housing complexes and shopping malls and other profitable ventures. While over 30 Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are being signed undemocratically with grave consequences for our rural producers. The rate of farmer suicides keeps on increasing every year and already between 1995 to 2010, about 2.5 lakh farmers have ended their lives due to the unjust policies. This is also a time when people all over the world are coming out on the streets and protesting the unfair anti peoples policies of liberalization from Wall Street in the US to all over Europe and increasingly now in Asia in over 1500 cities globally. We, the farmers of India, are in solidarity with these peoples movements against corporate greed and demand for a more pro-people, democratic and economically just policies. The farming sector of this country cannot be traded away or displaced any more - we demand strong state support for small scale agriculture and food production as well as decent social security in India's villages. It is with this thought that we place before you the following demands:

1.      Provide minimum support price (MSP) and guaranteed procurement for all crops: The increasing cost of cultivation and ever rising food inflation are killing Indian farmers, because the rise in food retail prices are not translating into any benefit to the Indian farmers. It is mainly because the farm gate prices in India are far way below the retail prices, which is benefiting the food speculators and middlemen and not the farmers. We would therefore like to reiterate our long pending demand for bringing in Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all crops. The current mechanism of selectively supporting only rice, wheat and few other crops are not sufficient. Furthermore the MSPs offered are insufficient due to ever-increasing prices of diesel and other inputs. We demand government support and guaranteed procurement of all crops while the support prices should be declared before the sowing seasons so that farmers have time to plan and not suffer from the vagaries of the price market. MSPs should be scientifically calculated by taking into consideration all inputs like the ever increasing prices of diesel, the rent of the land, farmers wage as a skilled worker, farmer’s family labor besides the cost of inputs like seeds and fertilizers. For this season we demand an MSP of wheat of Rs 2250 per quintal, of paddy at Rs 2200 per quintal, of cotton at Rs 5000 per quintal, of sugarcane at Rs 350 per quintal and of potato at Rs 600 per quintal.

2.      Support Turmeric farmers: Lastly, turmeric farmers have been suffering due to the high volatility of prices over the last year. Prices have crashed in the major turmeric producing areas and traders have started hoarding to wait and watch for better prices. We demand that special storage facilities be provided to farmers in the main turmeric producing states of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh so that they may be able to store their produce instead of losing it due to an unfavorable market situation. We also demand that a minimum price be announced for turmeric so that farmers are not forced to distress sell at very low prices.

3.      Provide fertilizer subsidy directly to farmers based on land holding: The ICCFM reiterate our long standing demand for providing fertilizer subsidy directly to the farmers based on his/ her land holding. This need to be given to only practicing farmers as per the state land holding limitation laws in order to check the benefit of this provision to companies and industries who at present own huge land. The constantly increasing prices of fertilizer are putting a huge pressure on farmers, this need to be checked by guaranteed subsidies.

4.      We need a nodal ministry for agriculture: Since agriculture issues are governed by multiple ministries it is confusing for farmers and counterproductive to effective implementation of agriculture laws. We therefore demand that there should be a nodal ministry of the group of ministers under which all agriculture related decisions are made.

5.      No to FTAs in agriculture, bring back quantitative restrictions (QRs) and import duties: The ICCFM farmers are quite upset with the UPA-2 agenda for trade liberalization through speeding up of the FTA negotiations to liberalize agricultural imports to India. We fear that the 30 odd FTAs which the government of India is negotiating with the highly industrial countries like EU, Israel, Australia, USA and others would provide market access to their agribusiness and their heavily subsidized agricultural commodities. This is highly detrimental to India's rural food producers and production. We are shocked that in a democracy like ours no consultations have been carried out of such FTAs and all the deals are being done behind closed doors without any parliamentary oversight, while our livelihoods, markets and biodiversity are being traded away. Such lack of transparency is unacceptable to us. We demand that agriculture and agricultural related activities must be kept out of any FTA negotiations India is engaging with. We demand that Quantitative Restrictions and import duties are brought back on all key agricultural commodities. Import duties should be at least 60% on all agricultural products. Also we demand a ban on large scale dumping from China of silk which has already led to silk farmers committing suicides in Karnataka due to the crash in silk prices.

6.    We want a separate budget for agriculture: India is an agricultural nation with the majority of its population [almost 60%] engaged in agriculture and related areas. We therefore demand that we urgently need a separate agriculture budget just as there is a separate railway budget.

7.      Bring in price controls, stronger penalties in the Seeds Bill: The present draft of the seed bill 2011 is not in the interest of farmers. The main problem is that there is no provision of regulating seed prices in the present draft bill, so we see no point in legislating a seed bill like this when companies can decide at their whim to charge very high prices increasing the burden on farmers. At present, companies are charging prices at will and that too without any rationale. Tomato seed price for instance varies between Rs 475 to Rs 76,000 per kg, and Capsicum seed price between Rs 3,670 to Rs 65,200 a kg. Since some seeds are already being removed from the Essential Commodities Act, it is even more essential that the government have the power to fix prices. Furthermore the penalties on companies for selling substandard or spurious seeds – a major problem in the seed industry are mild and not going to act as deterrents. The current proposals of Rs 30000 as a fine for seeds not conforming to the standards are hardly going to force seed companies to change their behavior. Therefore we demand strong penalties like imprisonment for 10 years and a high fine of upto 25 lakhs for selling spurious seeds or if there is any crop failure and farmers suffer loss.

8.      Ban the BRAI: We are totally opposed to the idea of an undemocratic institution like the Biotechnology Regulation Authority of India (BRAI) whose primary reason for being is to act as a clearing house for GMOs at a time when many nations are still debating this controversial technology; when India's public and farmers have already rejected this technology in the Bt brinjal consultations; and when many countries have actively banned GMOs. The BRAI is also not liable to provide information under the RTI and this non- transparent nature of the bill is unacceptable in a democratic country. Lastly, since GMOs are a question of agriculture, health and environment, those are the ministries that should be dealing with the issue of GMOs and not the Science and Technology Ministry whose main job is to promote GMOs in the name of technology. Promoters can simply not be regulators. We therefore demand scrapping of the BRAI bill.

9.      We demand a diesel subsidy: The high prices of diesel are putting a major burden on the farming community. We need diesel at affordable rates so that farming and food production can continue and farmers don't have to bear high expenses in an already expensive venture. We demand that diesel prices should be reduced to 50% of the current rates.

10.   MNREGA to be connected with agriculture in peak farming season and wages given to farmers: MNREGAs impact has been disastrous for farmers by creating a labor shortage during peak farming seasons. This is hitting the core of food production and also forcing small farmers to quit farming. While farmers [ large percentage of whom are also MNREGA laborers ] welcome higher wages and agree that Rs.100 per day is hardly commensurate with the revised and increased incomes of the 6th Pay Commission, we demand that MNREGA should not endanger farming but rather support it. We demand that MNREGA activities must continue to support peak farming seasons of crop harvesting and sowing. We also demand that farmers, since most of them are MNREGA workers themselves, should receive wages directly during peak farming seasons so that they can continue farming.

11.   Reduce Interest rate to 4% for all Agricultural Loans: We would like to demand that the government, as per the recommendation of the Swaminathan Committee report of 2007, must fix a maximum interest rate of 4% on all agricultural loans. We also like to reiterate our demand for a complete debt relief not only from institutional debt but also of private money lenders. Moreover, it is a known fact that most of the agricultural loans meant for small and marginal farmers are being diverted to big agri-corporations. We therefore demand that instead of providing credit facility to agribusiness, the UPA government bring policy to provide agricultural credit to small and marginal farmers at the nominal rate of interest.

12.   We demand separate policy for dry land farming: Since there is a major difference between irrigated farming and dry land farming, and since most of India's farmers are dry land farmers we demand that a separate policy be created for dry land farming.

13.   No to land acquisition for private purposes- we demand new Land Acquisition Act to support real public purposes and people's development: We do not agree with the rationale behind the proposed land acquisition act, which promotes urbanization as an inevitable phenomenon. It is clear to us that this is a politically created idea so that corporations can hoard lands at cheap prices and continue their highly profitable activities in the guise of public purpose. In a time of the climate crisis, the Indian government should not be blindly following the path of large scale urbanization and industrialization directed at elite consumption. We should instead focus on preserving agriculture land to secure food sovereignty. We are not against giving our lands for genuinely public purposes to be established after a national debate. We also demand that in the cases where lands are given a compensation amount of 10 times the market value is provided to land losers. Also acquisitions for NHAI and Railways should be brought under the Land acquisition act and not be governed under separate procedures to ensure fair compensation and rehabilitation to land losers.

14.   Crop Insurance to Compensate Farmers in case of Natural Calamity or crop damage due to wild animals: We would like to draw your kind attention on the anomaly in the current Crop Insurance Scheme where a block or tehsil (not even a village) is considered as a unit and unless a natural calamity hit the whole block or tehsil, farmers are not compensated. We therefore demand that under the Crop Insurance Scheme, each farmer and his/ her crop should be considered as a unit. In case of natural calamity like drought, floods, fire, hailstorm or frost which destroys standing crop of a farmer or groups of farmers, they must get compensation. The UPA government must also institute a policy for an Emergency Fund to compensate farmers (who don’t have crop insurance) in case of a natural calamity like drought, floods, fire, hailstorm or frost. Also in the case there is damage by wild animals which is a frequent issue, then all losses should be 100% compensated by the government and in case of the death of a farmer in such a case their farmer should get 5 lakh compensation.

15.   Medical Facilities and Insurance: In a time of increasing liberalization and inflation, farmers are not able to cope up with the cost of living at the low income they receive. With the increasing privatization of medical services in India, getting access to medical services is increasingly difficult or impossible for many food producers. We demand that medical facilities through a government aided health scheme and health insurance are provided to farmers for free just as they are to other government servants.

16.   Education facilities in rural areas: Farmers children need quality education services at par with the cities. We demand that proper schools and educational facilities are run by the government in rural areas as well a provision be made to provide free and highly subsidized education. Education is the right of the people of this country and it should be the governments primary duty to make all efforts to deliver this.

17. Ban private seed company research in public agricultural universities: We are opposed to Public Funded Intellectual Property bill which allows private companies to carry out their research in public agricultural universities. These universities should instead promote participatory pro farmer agroecological research based on traditional farming methods along with provision of a separate budget for this. 

Signed by:

Ajmer Singh Lakhowal, State President, BKU Punjab,	Gurnam Singh, State President, BKU Haryana,	S.S. Cheema, BKU Uttrakhand,
Rakesh Tikait, BKU U.P	Yudhvir Singh BKU	Chukki Nanjundaswamy, Karnataka Rajya Ryot Sangha, Karnataka
KS Puttanaiah, State President Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha,Karnataka	Sh Vijay Jawandhia Shetkari Sanghatna Maharashtra	S Kannaiyan, South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements
Sella Mutthu, President, Tamilanadu Farmers Association, Tamilanadu

South Indian Farmers response to the draft LA &RR Bill

To,
 
Mr. Jairam Ramesh,
Honorable Minister for Rural Development,
Government of India,
New Delhi.,

Dear Mr. Jairam Ramesh,
Greetings,

We , South Indian farmers movements are submitting hereunder our response to the Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement bill, 2011 (LA&RR bill).We write to demand the ministry to take our south Indian farmers response in to consideration in regard.

Yours Sincerely,

Chukki Nanjundaswamy,

S.Kannaiyan.

Coordinators,

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements (SICCFM)

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements

(SICCFM)

636, Ideal Homes Township,

Raja Rajeswari Nagar, Bangalore -5600098. Karnataka.

Telephone +91 94444089543,

Email: siccfm@gmail.com

South Indian Farmers response to the draft LA &RR Bill

31st August, 2011.

The Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement bill, 2011 (LA&RR bill) released by the ministry of rural development on July29th, 2011 in the public domain for discussion does not address genuine “public purpose” - such as rural development, agriculture, eco restoration, land for landless, rights of forest dwellers and tribals etc. Instead it is completely biased towards facilitating industrialization.  This bill is a result of a political compulsion - the compulsion to ensure that there is a coercive law to satisfy the forces [mainly industry] intending to grab land and resources. And that too at a time when those who want to acquire the land, whether government or the private sector has accumulated capital as never before, sufficient to bid and ‘buy’ land at the going rate in the market.

The farming community has no urgency to pass this bill; this is the urgency solely of the government and the industries to advance urbanization and private takeover of our resources. We do not accept the idea that our way of life has no place in the future of India. Industrialization and urbanization is not the right direction – there are already serious environmental, climatic, livelihood and food crises at stake. These crises will only worsen with the vision enshrined in this bill. We demand people’s sovereignty over resources. Why are we not giving land to the landless and completing the land reform process before acquiring land for the industries? We disagree with the fundamental principles laid down in this bill below and list out the reasons why as well as our main demand.

We reject the draft Land acquisition bill in the present form because:

1.  We oppose the fundamental spirit behind the bill. The definition of Public Purpose is absolutely unacceptable to us: The sole purpose of this draft bill is to accelerate industries and urbanization at the cost of all rural communities and our way of life. This bill does not cater to the needs for agriculture or eco-restoration or for land to the landless and small/marginal farmers. We oppose that the state should use its eminent domain in order to spread industries at the cost of rural livelihoods thus increasing the threat of food insecurity and the climate crisis. The role of farming community in ensuring the food sovereignty of India is absolutely more vital to the future of this country than unrestricted industrialization. We therefore reject this definition and demand that a genuine national consultation and deliberation with the farming and rural communities’ takes place at the local level to really define public purpose which should be determined along with farmers and the rural community before any development project. We are willing to give our lands for genuinely public purposes.

2.  Change of farm land use to industrial private purposes is unacceptable: Land is not a commodity to be purchased and sold. Land is about our identity, our roots and out community. Furthermore we oppose that farm land be turned into uses like hotels, residences for rich people. We also reject the distinction between irrigated and un irrigated lands.  This bill promotes acquisition of all lands except multi-cropped irrigated agricultural land, which is often owned by the rich farmers. All agricultural land should be kept for farming purposes only. There should be strong monitoring of land use even when purchased in the open market to ensure that the food sovereignty of India is not put in danger.  We condemn the commodification of land by the govt to facilitate industrialization – agriculture cannot wait and industrialization needs to wait!

3.  Minimum displacement is not the driving force behind this bill: In fact there is no mention of “no forced displacement” or “prior informed consent”. Furthermore 80% consent mentioned is only for PPP projects and not for government projects and there is no guarantee that the government will not use its eminent domain to acquire land for industry. No procedures have been laid out for obtaining the consent of 80% and who will decide that the consent has been obtained? Under the current draft bill the company itself can ascertain 80% consent and the chances are high that they can use forgery and other malpractices to prove consent. We demand a clear laid out procedure in the act itself and that 80% consent must apply to all acquisitions including only for government projects to minimize the trauma of displacement.

4.  No mechanism to protect land losers from unfair negotiations or malpractices of private players to buy land: There is a great power asymmetry between the land buyers and those whose lands are sought. The bill makes no effort to address this. There is no guarantee that private players will not use underhand methods, muscle power, forging etc to grab peoples lands. It does not prevent and protect the people from being forcibly dispossessed of their land through ‘sale’ of land to land mafias of all kinds.

5.  No guarantee that compensation, R & R will happen before the land is taken: The bill promises a ‘liberal’ and speedy compensation, relief and rehabilitation prior to the acquisition but at the same time permits delayed payment of compensation; The collector has enormous powers to decide when R & R is completed and also take over land before compensation is paid. The land losers are at the mercy of the collector who incidentally is also the person to be approached for making any complaints! Instead to strengthening the farmer’s position the bill is putting them at the mercy of the bureaucracy who have historically proved to be serving the interests of the industries and against the people.

6.  We reject the lip service to tribals, forest dwellers and gram sabhas in decision making: Forest dwellers have the primary right under Forest Rights Act to make decisions on forests and this bill does not address that for conducting any project, permission and consent needs to be first acquired from forest dwellers and tribals. How can forest dwellers rights over forest and natural resources be exchanged with an R and R package? Also the Gram Sabhas will receive a “token” consultation, under the current bill, they will not have any meaningful participation or the power to stop a project or give their prior informed consent; This bill also denies any decision making right on ‘relief and rehabilitation’ to the people, the gram/ward sabhas

7.  Inadequate rehabilitation package: Why is R and R only applied to 100 acres and above? Even if a single acre is acquired for any government project, then R and R should apply. Furthermore, the bill denies compensation and R & R to those affected by the acquisition of common property or public land and denies infrastructural amenities in the resettlement area where the number of resettled families is less than one hundred families. It exempts private companies from the provisions of rehabilitation and resettlement when the ‘land acquisition’ is for less than one hundred acres;

8.  Social impact assessment is a farce: Under the current bill the SIA seems like a window dressing. The main issues as to how the SIA will impact the final decision on the project are not answered. It seems like the SIA is only meant to improve the project rather than rejecting it if opposed by the people. Furthermore the SIA will only be reviewed by an independent expert body but will be conducted by the “appropriate government” when it should be both conducted and reviewed by independent bodies. There is no provision for participation of the affected people or Gram Sabhas in the SIA. It offers social impact assessment to be carried out, but does not insist that the decision to acquire land has to be based on its recommendations;

9.  Unfair disciplinary mechanisms: the bill provides for only disciplinary proceedings for offenses by the officials while providing for imprisonment and penalty to those people obstructing land acquisition.

OUR DEMAND

·        We demand the introduction of a new Bill instead of the bill the “The Draft National Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Resettlement bill, 2011” published by the ministry of Rural development on 29th July,2011 to repeal the draconian “The Land Acquisition Act 1894”. The ministry should completely revamp the bill and should come out with a new bill taking in to the consideration of the farmer’s movements and people’s movements.

·        We demand the government of India to formulate a committee comprising the representatives of the farmer’s movements to finalise the new bill for the land requirement for the government and Rehabilitation & Resettlement.

·        We demand that a genuine guideline of public purpose is created after nationwide debates at the taluka level. Only when genuine public purpose is determined by the new guidelines and after prior informed consent of those whose lands are needed in each case land can be given to the state after a liberal offer of compensation along with a relief and rehabilitation far above the operative market prices.

·        Project affected persons and or gram sabhas should have the right to stop a project if they find violations, or if the social impact assessments so recommend.

·        We demand that the government makes a timeline to build a consensus among the farming and rural communities of India, we need debates at the taluka level. The new bill should be translated in all regional languages so that we may be able to have discussions and debate at the grassroots level.

·        We demand  the government of India to  release a White Paper on the extent of land acquired for industrial purposes and extent of land ‘really' utilised for the purpose specified in the past six decades

·        Finally, before the new law comes into place all acquisition processes under the draconian 1894 Land Acquisition Act should be suspended.

Endorsed by

Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangh( KRRS) (Karanataka).

Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam( Tamil Nadu),

Uzhavar Ulaippalar Katchi(Tamil Nadu),

Uzhavar Periyakkam(Tamil Nadu),

Katchi Sarpartra Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam(Tamil Nadu),

Kongunadu Vivasayigal Sangam( Tamil Nadu),

Kerala Coconut Farmers Association (KCFA)( Kerala)

Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha(Kerala),

The Hindu : NATIONAL / KARNATAKA : Stakeholders trash draft Bill on land acquisition

The Hindu : NATIONAL / KARNATAKA : Stakeholders trash draft Bill on land acquisition

No to Land Acquisition for private purposes

South Indian Farmers Consultation

On Land Acquisition Act

Chennai, 12 July 2011

 Report by Ashlesha Khadse and Kannaiyan

We the members of SICCFM (South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements) representing south India's farmers had a discussion in Chennai on the 12 July with the participation of various farmers’ leaders from Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

We condemn the idea of land grabbing by the state for corporate interests from those who depend on land for their livelihoods. A farmer without land is like a fish without water. Others who depend on farmers for their livelihoods also suffer an immeasurable loss when land is taken away. Some may point out that farmers are willing to sell their lands, but the bitter truth today is that India’s faulty policies are leaving us no choice. This is due to the promotion of a wrong model of agriculture and a market oriented farming system which is leading to poor and volatile prices of produce, expensive inputs, degrading lands and water tables, loss of agro-diversity, lack of public services and mass suicides due to indebtedness. This is the reason that some farmers are doing the unthinkable – selling off their lands at the great price of the loss of identify, livelihood and breakdown of their community. They do this at the prospect of some short term monetary gain in a desperate situation but this is no long term solution to India's development. This trend will only swell up the numbers of the poor, increase urban migration, unemployment and slums in cities.  India cannot put its food producers through this loss of dignity. That is why we have come up with the following demands on the new law that will govern land sales from farmers for development purposes. Let’s have a law that will uphold people's rights over resources as the main basis of development.

The general principles on land needs for development

1.    We say no to land acquisition for private purposes. If industries need land then they can buy lands at the market prices in the real estate market from willing sellers. We need a government authority to make sure that no private entity uses underhand methods like harassing, bribery etc to purchase lands without farmers consent. Heavy penalties should be imposed on such cheaters.

2.    The concept of eminent domain should be nullified. The state cannot have the right to alienate anyone from their land.  If land is needed for a government project for public purpose and for development purposes then a democratic discussion should take place with the land owners and a transparent process should carry out the establishment of the public purpose behind the proposed project, the terms of compensation and rehabilitation and only after prior informed consent of the affected community and gram sabhas should the project planning start.

3.    We reject forceful acquisition of land. Land can be forcefully acquired only from those holding excess lands above land ceiling to be used for development and upliftment of the poor, agriculture and rural economy based livelihood generation and housing for the poor. 

4.    Prior informed consent should the primary guiding principle behind receiving land for public purposes.

5.    We demand an end to the 'urgency clause'. No forceful acquisitions should take place.

6.    Least or no displacement should take place. Options assessments must form part of all proposed projects.

7.    Land cannot be turned into uses that are unproductive. Especially cultivable land use should be reserved for agricultural purposes only.

8.    The rights of women and minorities should be protected at all times and their right to land should be recognized.

9.    Land titles should not be transferred if possible.  We may consider ideas like long term leasing of land, but the land should be returned to the original owners in the original condition after the use is over.  

If land is needed for government projects directed towards development and public purpose then then we demand the following to be incorporated in the law that will govern this process:-

1. Compensation:

1.    10 times the value of the market price should be given. Market price means the operative prices at the time of purchase.

2.    The compensation should also take into consideration the future price and value increase for the next 20 years as a result of the change in the land use.

3.    If the land seller so desires then a choice should be available to them to receive that part of the compensation which is above and over the lump sum land price in monthly instalments over the next 33 years.

4.    The land losers should also be given a percentage share in the new upcoming project.

5.    Shares and debentures cannot form part of the main compensation but can only be offered above and beyond the compensation so as to avoid any losses to the land givers.

6.    Compensation should be given in joint accounts with women of the family as well as land titles in the case of land for land should be in the name of both men and women.

7.    Those people whose livelihoods will be affected such as dependents on the land [labourers, tenants etc] should be counted as affected persons and also receive compensation or solatium.

2. Rehabilitation

1.    Those losing livelihood should receive the first priority for jobs in the proposed project and if there is a skill gap then training should be provided. One member of the family should be guaranteed a government job as a result of the loss of livelihood

2.    Land for land should be the first principle of rehabilitation.

3.    A transparent process with participation of the affected people should drive the designing of the rehabilitation package. This should ensure that the people rehabilitated are left better off than before. Their incomes should be at least 6 times better under the new rehabilitated project.

4.    Strategies should be created to ensure that the communities’ development needs are fulfilled. The community should discuss its needs and decide how to include these in the rehabilitation project.

3. Mechanisms

1.    We demand a process that is transparent and democratic. It should include the participation of the concerned gram sabhas at all levels of the project planning and implementation.

2.    We demand one national authority for the entire land receiving, compensation and rehabilitation process.

3.    This authority should be of easy access to affected persons.

4.    The decisions of this authority should be challengeable at the court.

2. Issues before receiving land

1.    Prior informed consent should be taken.

2.    Public purpose should be established.

3.    Options assessments should be done. Displacement should be the last option.

4.    Social impact assessments and environmental impact assessments should be undertaken.

5.    Compensation and rehabilitation should be completed first before taking possession of the land.

3. Violations and misuse

1.    Land that is not used within 5 years should be returned to the original owners. It cannot be auctioned off for other purposes with the government pocketing the profits. If a new purpose is needed then the entire process for prior informed consent should be initiated.

2.    Stringent penalties should be formulated to penalize any violations of the new act.

Other demands

-        The repealing of the outdated 1894 land acquisition act and a new law for both land purchasing and rehabilitation. This law should have a name that highlights the real development needs of the people and does not reduce the land sellers to victims but recognizes their right to land.

-        A national public consultation should take place to define “public purpose”.

-        There should be an immediate stop to all ongoing land acquisitions until the new law is brought out to the satisfaction of the people.

-        A White paper should be released on all past land acquisitions and their current status.

Endorsed by:

Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam

Uzhavar Ulaippalar Katchi

KarnatakaRajya Rayatha Sangam (KRRS)

Kerela Coconut Farmers Association

Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha

And representatives of farmers groups in Tamil Nadu including CIFA, Tamil Nadu.

For further details:

S.Kannaiyan,
Convener,
SICCFM.
+919444989543
siccfm@gmail.com,
sukannaiyan69@gmail.com