AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        Many developmental projects run against hurdles relating to land acquisition problems. The usual explanation offered is that politicians exploit illiteracy and ignorance of people to stir up agitations for their votebank purposes. The problem lies fundamentally in the reluctance to recognise ground realities. India accounts for 2.2 per cent of global land space which serves 16 per cent of the global population. All the trouble arises because of the failure to optimise land use in every area of activity relating to the exploitation of land.

        The catch here is the absence of coordination among Ministries controlling the different areas of land use such as for laying roads, for industrial and irrigation projects and for setting up power projects. This, along with the pull of parochial pressures from regional partners at the Central regime, foreswears against rational decisions and essential reconciliation of conflicting stances. The Justice Kirpal Committee which is looking into the question of optimal green cover suggests that the forest cover should be 33 per cent of the land area. The actuals are far below this norm even including shrubbery as forest.

        By 2050, India's population is expected to be between 1.5 and 1.8 billion which means that there would be 50 per cent more people than now while there would be no finite increase in natural capital such as land and water. The hurt of these constraints would be more severe than now. The hurt could be softened only by rational distribution of land among the competing uses.

        Since climate is influenced by forest cover, the area that should be under forests should be demarcated and it should be protected against encroachment for other purposes. This is more easily said than done because it would be deemed politically and economically unwise to avoid keeping promises on development of power, irrigation and industry. A major crisis is forming in the agricultural sector which calls for demarcation of arable as against non-cultivable land and defining which crops and which rotation of crops could at all be opted for in accordance with the agro-economic realities of each region. The paradox now is in planning irrigation projects and diverting farm land to non-agricultural purposes. This is because votebank compulsions make a mockery of economic reason. In theory, it is said that people can be persuaded to opt for scientific planning of land use through the offer of appropriate incentives but, in actual practice, traditional attitudes of farmers coupled with the urge to follow the gospel that says industrialise or perish defeat these noble purposes which would be called as ivory tower perceptions.

        A more daunting problem concerns inadequacies of laws on compensation for acquisition of land. Even if this is corrected, it may not be easy to work out the rehabilitation and resettlement of people who lose their land to the government. The record here has been dismal so far. Indeed once the permission for a project is given, no interest is evinced in ensuring relief and rehabilitation.

        The ideal solution is to constitute a Special Purpose Vehicle consisting of those who enjoy the confidence of the people and NGOs and freeing it from the implementing agency which, as said earlier, loses interest once permission for a project is granted. A dedicated SPV, with the support of civil society and communication and technological aids could tackle relief and rehabilitation better. The catch would be political intervention of the Centre and regional administrations.