Governments around the World and Land Acquisition
Humans through history have been governed by different types
of governments ranging from monarchies, dictatorships to communist one party
rule and democracies. However, in all forms of governments, the rights of both
citizens and those who govern have not been absolute. Thus no citizen has had
absolute right anywhere to injure or kill other members of society and nearly
all types of governments, except some short lived despotic ones, have not had the right to imprison or enslave citizens
without a due process of law. There have been other limitations on governments
too, for example a government of whatever form may not take away the children
of citizens, the modesty of its women or their private property except within
well defined exceptions. For example, if a parent is seen to be cruel in an
extreme way, a child may be taken away; when a piece of land is required for an
urgent public purpose such as defense of the country or building an essential
road, land may be acquired. However, there have been instances through history
where governments have exceeded their briefs but such excesses have produced
sad consequences.
A more detailed academic study on land acquisition around the world is here (with thanks to twitter friend Rajat Gupta for leading me to it)
A more detailed academic study on land acquisition around the world is here (with thanks to twitter friend Rajat Gupta for leading me to it)
In recent centuries, the Europeans led the development of
human civilization and when they ventured out across the world to new areas
such as the Americas,
Africa, Australia and Asia they regarded themselves as superior to other races
they encountered and therefore believed that natives did not have full human
rights as they themselves had. It was such a notion that led to the practice of
slavery and acquisition of lands belonging to natives through various acts and
laws instituted for the purpose.
In India,
in 1894, a land acquisition act was instituted to enable the colonial rulers to
acquire lands of private persons for essential public purposes. When the
foreign rulers left India
in 1947, the new rulers tutored by the practice of foreign rulers felt it was
advantageous to continue with existing laws and practices. Few objected because
much of the population was not an educated one. The native rulers in fact went
further – they gave new meanings to public purpose so as to acquire land of
private persons for even private purposes, albeit with some compensation. As
democracy strengthened and uproar ensued, in 2013, this law had to be modified
to make acquisition of land much more stringent. However, there were
capitalists and some in governments who had got used to the earlier benefits of
an easy land acquisition policy. They have recently lobbied successfully for a
return to previous easier acquisitions. Ordnance, albeit temporary, has been
brought in to reverse the changes.
While the matter is not yet finalized into law, a debate
continues on the matter, those in favor of easy acquisition sight the end
result – faster economic development.
They also quote high compensations being offered for this acquisition.
Those against it stress on the means and the right of a private citizen to hold
on to his land, often ancestral, if they wish to and say that this right is
not negated even if the compensation is very high. Wisdom through the ages on the other hand indicates that it
is the means that are far more important than the end. If improper means are
used for an end, howsoever laudable, the long term end result is bad.
In principle there is nothing to stop a private party from purchasing private land through negotiations in the open market and proceeding with their projects but they have found it much easier to just take land acquired through government machinery on lease or purchase and continue to lobby for it.
In principle there is nothing to stop a private party from purchasing private land through negotiations in the open market and proceeding with their projects but they have found it much easier to just take land acquired through government machinery on lease or purchase and continue to lobby for it.
To remove by force and compulsion a man and his sweet children from home and land that belonged to his forefathers, where he played in the lap of his grandfather and where his parents breathed their last except for the most unavoidable of reasons can not be regarded as a compassionate and humane thing to do. It is especially distasteful and shakes one’s faith in humanity if it is for the convenience and pleasure of a rich businessman who moves about in air-conditioned cars and owns several homes. The story – Grapes of Wrath – by Earnest Hemingway is a poignant and heart breaking story of one such family dislodged from their homes and lands and the suffering that follows.
The alternative approach to creation of industrial zones or smart cities is the route of notifications. Special areas can be notified under automatic land conversion as urban or industrial area, a master plan developed and shared with public and only the necessary minimum acquired for say roads. The rest of the land would be acquired through voluntary purchase. The
government can do the same by negotiating purchases from private owners. If the
price is right many would agree. Some would refuse and a new city or industrial area may end up
with private farms in its midst, but then such a new city would be more
natural, a city of the future as described elsewhere (AM cities) that has green
agricultural areas within its boundaries. Eventually though sale of even these pockets would become attractive and provide room for future developments within the city in a much more natural way than a city designed on paper. Cities that were designed on paper that way such as NOIDA and NCR Gurgaon in India have become extremely uncomfortable and unnatural to live in the view of this author. A Highway in China
has ended up with a home on an Island in its
middle because one landowner held out. It has added an unusual charm to the
highway and stands as testimony that even in a one party communist state, the
government is careful not to trample on the most fundamental basic human rights
of a citizen.
While all through human history some injustices have been justified by a laudable end- in this case development - it is important to remember that it is even more important to have good means to it. That is is the philosophy of the Bhagavat Gita, Buddha, The Bible, Gandhi and all good humans. Taking away someone's land or home without a persons consent can not be regarded as a good, right or humane thing to do.
"In the People's Republic of China, during most of the Communist era, private ownership of property was abolished, making it easy for residents to be moved on - but now the laws have been tightened up and it is illegal to demolish property by force without an agreement." It would be most unfortunate and a severe trampling on the rights of humans if India starts moving in the opposite direction, despite being a democracy. It would give credence to the assertion by some that modern democracies are by the people, of the people in some cases when a dynasty does not rule, but not for the people in either case, more for the one percent instead.
While all through human history some injustices have been justified by a laudable end- in this case development - it is important to remember that it is even more important to have good means to it. That is is the philosophy of the Bhagavat Gita, Buddha, The Bible, Gandhi and all good humans. Taking away someone's land or home without a persons consent can not be regarded as a good, right or humane thing to do.
 |
| Home in middle of highway in China, for report see: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2236746/Road-built-building-couple-refuse-China.html |
Comments
of useful suggestions. Thanks a lot for educating us.