The trouble with angry farmers
It used to be an Indian joke that the only culture in Punjab state was agriculture. But farming is not to be scoffed at, and the Congress party's defeat in the recent election for Punjab's state assembly holds a lesson for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the pace and direction of economic liberalisation.
How not to disappoint public expectations without jettisoning essential reforms is democracy's perennial challenge. Should leaders give the people what they want? Or what is good for them in the long term - even if the immediate impact hurts?
This week's cautious budget from Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram - with higher farm credit and cheaper fertiliser - indicates that the message of the Punjab hustings has been taken seriously. But a comprehensive answer to that question demands a far-sighted but practical policy on the competing demands for land from agriculture and industry.
The charismatic Captain Amrinder Singh, Punjab's ousted chief minister, overlooked the appearance of a conflict of interest. As hereditary maharajah of Patiala, the richest and biggest of the erstwhile Sikh princely states, he may not have been in touch with grass-roots opinion.
Captain Singh is a modern man with ambitious dreams of major industrial projects, glittering shopping malls - and at least one of the 63 special economic zones (SEZs) that Dr Singh has promised to create all over the country. Captain Singh faced an outcry when agricultural land was acquired, allegedly for private housing. He also lost his early shine by stopping the free electricity that his predecessor gave farmers. Though he restored the privilege, the damage was done. All this must have weighed with the prime minister: hence the budget's increased spending on social welfare - like a rural job-guarantee programme - and efforts to curb inflation.
But the land question at the heart of Dr Singh's dilemma lies outside the scope of budgetary proposals. If the proposed SEZs are not shelved, they will require hundreds of thousands of acres. That means dispossessing thousands of peasants. The pain can be minimised by getting state governments to endorse a national land plan so that as many SEZs as possible are located in areas that are not being profitably cultivated. Antiquated British-era land laws must also be updated to facilitate acquisition.
While the present system of state governments acquiring land for industrialists is open to political pressures, the alternative of private buying might encourage speculation. There has to be a middle way, with honest official supervision.
Finally, the long-talked-of compensation and rehabilitation package to ensure that families who lose their land are not victimised must be finalised soon. The scope for political obstruction will be diminished if the package provides alternative homes, training in specialised skills and jobs, in addition to cash compensation.
The enclosure of vast tracts of common land during Britain's Industrial Revolution caused immense pain, but uprooted peasants did not have a vote. Democracy makes all the difference. Which is why Dr Singh must tread carefully. Ultimately, economics is a question of political will and skill.
Sunanda Kisor Datta-Ray is a former editor of The Statesman in India
