'Inclusiveness' also implies equity for farmers whose lands are to be handed over for special projects, argues Mahesh Vijapurkar, former deputy editor, The Hindu.

The Tatas have entered the farmland allotted to them in Singur. The Maharashtra government has assigned a swath of what is farmland in the vicinity of Chakan, near Pune, to Volkswagen AG, at prices half of its own scale of rates. The Prime Minister has spoken of having to give what has to be given to sustain the programme of setting special economic zones (SEZs). However, so far, one has not heard of any focused attempt at meeting the demands of the farmer for a fair deal and equitable price for his critical asset. In fact, the farmer deserves more.

There is no explanation yet as to why a farmer be paid a pittance, and then the land transferred to Volkswagen at Rs14.30 lakh per acre when the asking price in the neighbourhood of Chakan near Pune is Rs40 lakh an acre. It is difficult to explain to a farmer that when private developers have bought land at Rs20 lakh per bigha (an unstandardised measure of land generally approximating 3,025 metres) in villages along the route of the proposed Taj Expressway linking New Delhi and Agra, but he should part with his property for Rs3.2 lakh a bigha to build that highway.

Try telling it to a farmer and he would laugh his head off because it is weird. But he dare not defy the order, because the government has the prerogative of virtually seizing his land and paying a pittance in return because the mighty state often invokes – less the exception, more the rule - the doctrine of 'eminent domain' by which it can acquire lands for public purpose. In the case of SEZ's the public purpose is the private investor who wants to develop the land into new centres of economic activity.

Now, in the wake of continued protests in Nandigram in West Bengal, which had led to over 11 deaths on Wednesday last week, there is talk of the government wanting to assist farmers find alternative land for them to plough and raise crops – in short, remain farmers. The idea is to use the compensation money to buy new patches.

It would not be long before the government finds itself up against a wall finding such land of equal measure and similar productivity for land in the open market with the money it paid to get the land for the Tatas.

The farmer resists his land being taken away because he does not like being forced to part with it at prices that bear no relationship to the prevailing market rates. By all accounts, the price of land in the vicinity of new projects, either because of that or despite the new projects, is certainly higher than what is being offered. A cultivator with title to a land does not like being pushed into a sale on the buyer's terms. Going by every land acquisition for any project so far, the offered price has always been lower than the market price.

If a better price alone were a consideration, he would have sold it anyaway, grabbing the best offer in the open land market and held his peace. He hangs on to it, despite even poor returns in most cases because farming is not remunerative. He does so because the land confers an identity on him. Extreme distress alone forces him to sell. He does it to marry off his daughter, or to pay off usurious moneylenders who anyhow have entrapped him with his own thumb impression on various IOUs. He does not sell his land because he he does not visualise a better life without it. That's because he has not seen others improve their lives after being parted from their land.

No wonder the discontent spills over to the streets, as was evident recently in West Bengal and sometime ago, around Maan village close to Pune when landholders opposed acquisitions for setting up IT parks. Seeing how economic activity brings people from far away to what was once his land and people prosper into higher economic, white collar status, it is unlikely that a farmer can be expected to just sit at the edge and watch others prosper at his cost. He wants a share, and a fair one at that. Instead of being persuaded to sell, landholders are forced to sell. Neither is he told that he has a vital resource which could be converted into useful equity. But he has realised it now and unwilling to countenance being short-changed.

It is not that lands were not acquired in the past. They were parcels that were taken away at notional prices and since they were scattered, the collective capabilities of the farming community did not come to the fore. Yes, lands were acquired for big dams but that was in the distant past before the farmers marshalled their strength together. But things have changed because the farmers have realised that land is the most vital resource for industrialisation. With huge swathes required for SEZs, the issue has gained dominance. Some of them would compete for size with major existing cities.

However, instead of discussing alternative land acquisition models without resort to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to suit the times, where the farmer too has his aspirations to be met, we have Chief Ministers writing to the Prime Minister that investors who had come forward to set up SEZs are getting edgy. It is not anyone's case that lands should not be acquired but the country has to engage itself in finding ways and means of going about it. It is as if the farmer does not matter, that he can be quietened sooner or later.

It is seldom realised that in the new order the world is moving into, where new aspirations are emerging by the day, where people no longer have the patience to wait long for gains to percolate down to them – lack of speed and corruption being the two major speed breakers – dependence on old, draconian laws like the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can no longer be brought into play. That archaic legal provision has the inbuilt enabler: forceful acquisition which does not jell with the increasingly democratic regime. Inclusiveness is the thing; the demand is for equity – nothing more, nothing less.

Viewed in that perspective, actually the only valid perspective, why should a farmer have his land commandeered when the promoter of the new enterprise that comes up on that piece of land pays the market rate for everything else, be it cement to construct the factory, the machinery that would hum to churn out stuff and everything else, including salaries, are at market dictated prices? Why should only the farmer forgo his everything as if he is the only benefactor for others at the behest of the State? Why should not the farmer's land be treated as his equity contribution, reckoning the market price of the land, the future earning on it and the value that accrues to the project when built upon it? This would be paying him the due enterprise value.

There have been a few – actually rare – alternative models already available in which the farmers are better treated but no much is heard about it. For a start, they could be replicated, if not immediately improved upon. For instance, Bharat Forge's intent of a long term stake in the SEZ project which would give landholders revenue streams in the future too. Much prior to the opposition in Raigad to Reliance SEZ and in Singur against land for the Tata small car project, landholders near Pune became participants in a project to build Magarpatta City, a cybercity-cum-residential complex. They are not losing lands, but are partners.

They have assurances of future incomes, thanks to a complex but unique model. They would have the right to operate taxi services, housekeeping, eating houses, etc. Living as they do on the fringe of development, they have seen enough about opportunities that could come their way but did not because a pact between the developer and the critical asset owner was never in place in other projects. But such a pact appears to be the lynchpin of the arrangement between the landholder and the Bharat Forge's proposed SEZ.

While Bharat Forge's reported model includes providing a share in the total office spaces to be created to the original owner to rent out, the Reliance SEZ's offer includes, apart from prices higher than what the State Government's Ready Reckoner entails, returning 12.5 per cent of the developed land to the original landholder. However, this model is rather old hat, since Maharashtra's CIDCO used that in its deals with the farmers for lands on which it built Navi Mumbai. However, this is only a start, not the end of the search for new models. It brooks no delays.