The woman’s death triggered a chita satyagraha: setting up funeral pyres in their fields, farmers threatened to immolate themselves if their land was taken. Later, a farmer from Katni tried to kill himself by consuming poison. This time, the protests were violent. In panic, the government sent agriculture minister Ramkrishna Kusmaria to the region. Instead of cooling tempers, he inflamed the protesters by calling them dalals.
The opposition Congress sprang in: at a December 2 kisan rally in Katni, AICC general secretary Digvijay Singh lambasted Chauhan’s “anti-farmer policies”. He sat upon a pyre in symbolic solidarity with the farmers. Ajay Singh, leader of the opposition in the Madhya Pradesh assembly, says, “Even the British raj did not suppress farmers this way.”
The government had more cause for caginess: the state human rights commission ruled that the police had used excessive force on farmers blocking a highway in May in Raisen district. One farmer had died in police firing. The commission also determined that 18 rounds fired on the protesters had come from an AK-47 assault rifle.
The quandary Chauhan faces is that, at a global investors’ meeting in Indore, the government had signed MoUs with 108 companies, promising them land. Under agreements signed earlier, land is to be procured for 60 industries. Of these, Moser Baer seeks 1,800 acres for a thermal power plant in Anuppur district and the Avanta group seeks 800 acres for a power plant in Seoni district. An MP Industrial Development Corporation report says private investors have already acquired 19,000 hectares of farmland for setting up industries. Farmers are wisening up. In the Chhindwara, Singrauli and Damoh districts, protesters say they won’t have their land taken under an antiquated, 177-year-old law.
The spate of investors’ meets Chauhan has organised stands in opposition to his attempts, in years past, to project himself as a kisan ka neta. In 2011, he had threatened a protest fast if the Centre did not clear a Rs 2,200-crore compensation package for farmers who lost their crop to hailstorms. He then treatened a dharna outside Parliament if the Centre failed to supply enough gunny sacks for storing wheat procurements. And earlier this year, the state procured 85 lakh metric tonnes of wheat—the largest procurement among all states. Chauhan began to be seen as a benefactor of farmers.
Now, he’s in a fix. If he wants to keep industrialists smiling, he will have to provide land. And that will hurt farmers. It will be interesting to see how he wriggles out of this sticky situation.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Outlook magazine has taken up an extremely important matter and one which deserves analysis without referring to politics.
India needs industrial development. An industrialist will always want to set up an industrial unit in a place where production efficiencies are maximised - ideally this will be in such an area where nobody else will be harmed but practically, it may very well lead to displacement.
So, what is the solution? The only lasting solution is to make the farmer a stakeholder. But how? After all, his area of expertise is agriculture - which may not be of relevance to the concerned industry.
One way out is to create a legal entity whose asset would be the land bank and make farmers the shareholders in the entity in proportion to their land holdings. Industry could then lease the land from the entity directly and rental income could then be disbursed to the land owners. Taking this idea forward, the farmers could themselves develop an industrial park and rent it out to the highest bidder.
Another idea is to create a separate company for every project which seeks to come up on agricultural land and make the farmers shareholders in proportion to their land holdings in a mutually acceptable formula. The farmers would then become the owners and be entitled to dividend income.
There is also the rights of sharecroppers and landless labourers - many of whom would have a relationship with the farmer going back generations.
Also, we need to figure out the notional future income from such entities. What, again, would be the income the erstwhile farmer would presumably make from an alternate (non-farming) activity. Would his consolidated real income go up or down?
To reiterate, this has got nothing to do with politics - it is an extremely important matter pertaining to national development. Let Outlook magazine led the vanguard of this analysis.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT