Land wars: Anand Mahindra debates Medha Patkar

Editor’s Note: Rohini Nilekani’s Uncommon Ground: Dialogues between Business and Social Leaders  (Viking, Rs 499) brings together titans of business and civil society who are often on opposite sides of the polarized debate over development. It offers in, her words, a rare “platform of reasoned discourse” be it on job creation, food security, or the environment, and is must-read for anyone concerned about the future of our rapidly changing nation. Below is an excerpt from a conversation between Medha Patkar, the land rights activist best known for her work on the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Anand Mahindra who heads the $7 billion Mahindra Group. What constitutes public purpose? If some citizens are required to sacrifice land for the larger good, then who will determine this larger good, and how? Various estimates put the number of people displaced for development projects since Independence anywhere between 20 million and 40 million. Only rarely has the issue of their rehabilitation and resettlement been resolved fairly and amicably. Unless we have a common and clear understanding of what constitutes public purpose, and for which land must be acquired or diverted from uses such as food production, we cannot get very far. Serious trade-offs will have to be made in the foreseeable future. Clearly, land can be monetized for social good, but it cannot be at the cost of the stake-losers. Rohini Nilekani: Medhaji, would you say there is a consensus that there will have to be some kind of land transfer for industry and industrialization in the coming years? Patkar: Why should there be a transfer of land? Some land should be put to use for industrialization, as it is one of the many socioeconomic political objectives. But in the first few decades after Independence, there was a more or less national consensus that included the state and the civil society. The agenda was to bring about industrialization as a ‘poorakh’—you know, as supplementary or complementary to agriculture. It was never meant to be at the cost of agriculture. . . Millions of hectares of land, at least 24 out of 330 million hectares of India’s land is fallow land and that can very well be utilized for industries. Nilekani: So we are agreed that industry does need land. You are questioning where that land should come from. Patkar: Yes. And how it should be transferred and how it should NOT be, and on whom should be the onus for this transfer and with whose consent it should be done. Nilekani: Anand, coming to you, it appears that there is no question that industry is going to need more land. Where should this land come from? Mahindra: Medhaji’s answer did seem to imply that there doesn’t have to be a transfer. It would be wonderful if there was that much land available that it could be transferred without having to displace anyone or any farmer. . . . Unfortunately, [caption id=“attachment_111349” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Anand Mahindra, vice chairman and managing director of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Danish Siddiqui/Reuters”] [/caption] we are not like Australia, a country which has a huge land mass and a very small population. More than 60–65 per cent of our people still live off farming. There could inevitably be a point at which the ideal land for a particular industrial development happens to be populated by farmers. Hopefully, that land will be where farming was subsistence, which is not double-cropping land. But there will be situations where we will have to envision a transfer. And that I agree with Medhaji is the crux of the matter. Under what circumstances and in what manner should it be done so that there is a win-win solution for both? That’s the issue in front of us. Nilekani: We have got to the heart of the matter. Would you like to respond to that? Patkar: I was just looking at the Mahindra & Mahindra’s own SEZ in Raigad and here is the map (shows map). The Wadivali Dam is going to irrigate this land and much of what you are taking for a so-called world-class city would have been greened, but the canals are just not made, in spite of money having been spent and to be spent on the irrigation project being about 28 crore rupees. So after having these things planned, all the plans are shelved and suddenly the land is going to be given to an SEZ. And people have got the stamps on their property titles saying this land is reserved. So where would these farmers who have the two crops go suddenly? And if they are not for this world-class city at the cost of their agriculture—their way of lifestyle—why should they be compelled in the name of MIDC, industrialization, special economic zone as this is, to give away land to a corporate? Nilekani: This brings us to the question of eminent domain of the state. Anand, you have been allotted land through some negotiations for development. Some people within that who do not want to part with their land are being made to, with the state standing behind them. What is the way out? Mahindra: Let me first of all talk about our first SEZ. Mahindra World City—I say with pride that we were the first private sector operator—in Chennai. And I must say my own career actually came under jeopardy when that project took six years to complete because we actually went about and acquired 98 per cent of the land through private negotiation. We didn’t go through the state. And I dare say [that] I do not as Mahindra & Mahindra have coercive powers to make somebody part with land unless they see a benefit in it for them. We took six years longer than necessary. Today we have a thriving SEZ, thriving employment which is being showcased by the government as a window into what the world could look like. As far as the Maharashtra project is concerned, Rohini, it is not as if the government has acquired the land. The same process is being followed. Negotiations are taking place with the farmers. If there is any question where a farmer does not want to part with his land—I am telling you and I am making a commitment here—Mahindra & Mahindra will not go ahead with it…. Patkar: No, Mr Mahindra that is not exactly what is happening. One is the policy and another is the principle. And the second level is of practice. There is also the Maha Mumbai SEZ of the Ambanis. It is not only yours. Yours has not yet started here in Maharashtra. But in Chennai also, I know that the 1400 acres—most of it was agricultural land and two crop land and the people were not for it; they were agitating. But suddenly there was an agreement. But today also people, most of them—and this comes to me from a very senior Gandhian leader—they are very agitated. They feel that they were given very meagre [caption id=“attachment_111351” align=“alignright” width=“380” caption=“Archive image of Medha Patkar protesting with villagers. Reuters”] [/caption] compensation. And this is what is happening everywhere. And it is not only compensation in the form of money but when the livelihoods are affected, not only of the titled land-holders but also of the labourers, artisans, fish workers—and in many places these are the people whose livelihoods cannot be replaced. For example, the fish workers in Gorai, near Bombay from whom the land is being forcibly acquired for Essel World kind of entertainment or world-class cities, which I think are in the same category. Nilekani: Medhaji, we have got too many issues here. We need to be clearer. Patkar: It’s a misuse of the principle of eminent domain. Nilekani: Right. I agree. So let’s go back to the question that he had raised, that if farmers in a particular area are given some kind of alternative and decide willingly to give up their land for whatever the reasons might be—is that wrong? Patkar: The first thing is they should be given a choice. A choice [not] to allow their lifestyles and the source of their livelihood of generations to be killed and to be changed in the form of land use change! And that is their right under the Constitution. Even in article 243 it was said that land use and development plans will be made first by the gram sabhas and in the urban areas by the ward sabhas. Those would be brought together to make a district plan. But today’s special economic zones or the so called city development plans which are made by not even the NGOs, but by (elite) NGOs like Bombay First where the Tatas, Mahindras, Ambanis—they are the only members—change the land use of urban areas. Nilekani: Must we always assume that when farmers give up their land that it is because there is no alternative? Mahindra: First of all, Medhaji, just to address what you said earlier, if we were being coercive and not engaging in a constructive dialogue, believe me we would have started the SEZ in Maharashtra much earlier. We are not used to waiting this long. It doesn’t justify the project economics. We are obviously going about it the right way. The second SEZ that we are setting up is actually not in Maharashtra. It’s in Jaipur. Patkar: Jaipur. Yes. I met those people also. Mahindra: 2500 acres of land have been acquired in a manner which I think is exemplary. You know that when you say that nothing has been given—we have provided 25 per cent of developed land. It is being given to them free of cost. This is quite apart from the other things that we are doing, which are frankly [Corporate Social Responsibility] CSR related. We are talking about training for livelihood. The Mahindra Group is setting up today a chain of schools around the country called the Mahindra Pride Schools which are purely to give vocational training, not just training to go somewhere else—but training to be employed in this sector—in the SEZ if possible. We would not have been able to acquire 2500 acres of land if there wasn’t a win-win solution. It was exemplary. You know I would rather move this discussion because I believe it was meant to be a generic discussion. I don’t want it to become a court of law between Mahindra & Mahindra and the National Alliance. I am getting free publicity for my SEZs. Nilekani: But we want to establish whether there are good practices—is it possible to get it right? Patkar: I know there is a difference between the Ambanis and the Mahindras and yet I think you know everywhere there is coercion or intimidation that is being used. There are agents who approach the people. In Jaipur the same thing is happening. Nilekani: I am sure there are many cases of good practices and some questionable practices and that’s true across all sectors. Patkar: No, there are no good practices as far as SEZs are concerned.