New land bill will affect food security, says Opposition

Image
IANS New Delhi
Last Updated : Mar 09 2015 | 5:42 PM IST

Opposition parties on Monday attacked the central government over the land acquisition bill, saying taking away farmers' lands will affect the country's food security.

"Farmers in our country do not have water for irrigation and fertilizers, now they will also not have any land," Congress member Jyotiraditya Scindia said in the Lok Sabha after the government tabled the bill for discussion.

Asserting that the Congress will oppose the new law from streets to parliament, Scindia said: "It will affect the food security of the country."

"If you take tribal land, then be prepared for a spurt in Maoist activities," the member said, adding the country cannot have islands of prosperity.

The Right to Fair Compensation, Rehabilitation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2015, would replace an ordinance which was promulgated by the government in December 2014.

Scindia also asked if the government respects the president. "The president had said ordinances need to be promulgated in emergency situations only."

"This bill should have been sent to the standing committee, but you vetoed it as you have a majority," he said.

Trinamool Congress leader Kalyan Banerjee said: "We are opposing the bill 100 percent."

"In 2007, our leader fasted for 26 days to protect the interests of farmers in Singur in West Bengal," he said.

Banerjee said his party was struggling for farmers' rights. "By this amendment, the honour of farmers in this country is being taken away."

"We have seen a number of cases where farmers have not been given back the land though the project has not been completed," he said, asking why should multi-crop land be given away for industry.

"This will affect the food security of the country," he said.

Biju Janata Dal member Tathagat Satpathy said the bill was detrimental to farmers owning small tracts of land in rural India.

"Are we in 2015, or have we been dragged back to the British era? Development for whom? That is a basic question that troubles my mind."

Satpathy said his party strongly opposed the elimination of social impact assessment clause.

"On the one hand we are talking about providing irrigation to farmers, and on the other hand we are taking away their land."

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Mar 09 2015 | 5:32 PM IST

Next Story