Looking for a step forward

Government's efforts on land deserve credit

While the National Democratic Alliance government managed to receive legislative approval for many of the ordinances that it had passed earlier in its term, its amendment to the 2013 land acquisition Act is an exception. The government's proposed changes to the law have run into major political headwinds, with many opposition parties - and even some of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s allies - uniting against any changes being made to the law. The prime minister used state-run radio to launch an attack on the political opposition, and to make a case for the government's amendments. However, there is as yet uncertainty as to the path forward.

The first and most important response should be to praise the government's readiness to address the concerns raised after the 2013 law was passed. It is true that the BJP signed on to that law when in opposition. But that does not mean that it should not, once in government, attempt to change the law in response to perceived problems. What is particularly welcome is that the prime minister himself has chosen to expend political capital on a measure that is proving difficult and yet is of importance when it comes to restarting the investment cycle. This hopefully demonstrates the beginning of a more general willingness to engage in politically complicated reform measures.

This is not to say that there are no aspects of the current draft of the amendment that are problematic. Many are right to be concerned at the omission of a consent clause, for example. Confiscation of land without consent is unjust, and should be avoided except to solve what is known in economics as the "hold-up problem" - when a very few landowners deliberately choose to try and extract extra money from those who have already purchased almost all the other contiguous plots of land. Perhaps the current consent level, at 80 per cent, is too high; if so, that should be the focus of discussion in Parliament. The government might well be willing to concede on certain aspects of the consent clause, especially because of the emotive significance of expropriation. It is also unwise to expose projects to the political risk involved in a systemic denial of consent. Thus, the opposition and the government should sit down and try and work out a formula that satisfies both sides, instead of choosing the path of street protests.

Among the other changes that the government seeks to make to the 2013 law is the removal of the "social impact assessment". This was a key part of the law, intended to properly identify land-losers as well as those without title deed to land whose livelihood was nevertheless affected. The government is right to argue that the timetables for this assessment were too long, and would slow down acquisition to such a degree as to render the entire process worthless. Here, too, there is scope for intelligent compromise - why not consider a total time limit for such an assessment, failing which the project is statutorily deemed to have been approved, in the manner now being used for many environmental projects? Either way, the government should be commended for its efforts to update the law - and the opposition should reach out to the government to frame an amendment that is mutually acceptable.