LEGAL OVERVIEW OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THE STATE AGRICULTURAL POLICY

-                            

Give a man a fish and he will ea it. Give a man a net and the he will eat all his life”.

-         Chinese Maxim

Meeting the demands of the hungry masses - food security requires production and making available of food in adequate quantities. It is basically a question of entitlement to food through access to land and other means of production. The Constitution of India visualizes such a regime for managing our resources that facilitates equitable access to and use of resource as to satisfy this basic need. How have the relevant laws (especially the ones relating to land acquisition and land reforms), policies and practices translated this dream and vision of the makers of the Constitution into reality, requires examination. This paper is an attempt in evaluating the policy perceptions and the recent changes in the law in relation to agriculture against the backdrop of the constitutional directive of a resource management regime rooted in equity and justice.

Constitutional Scheme: The fundamental principles of natural resource management are described in the two Directive Principles of State Policy namely:

i)      distribution of ownership and control of the material resources of the
community should be in such a manner as to subserve the common good and

ii)     the operation of the economic system should not result in concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment (Article 39(b)&(c))

This socialist-welfarist model of management of natural resources have been

pursued with great vigour in all the amendments effected to the Constitution.

The relegation of Right to property from a Constitutional guaranteed right (fundamental right) to no more than a constitutional right (Article 300A) is one such effort. Through this effort perceiving rights and entitlements over resources as something more than an individual, private and exclusive claim and as a tool for realizing common good and promoting community interest, got a boost. The 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution initiated the democratic decentralization process, enabling the local self-governing bodies and communities of people to have a greater say in the management of natural resources. The provisions in relation to areas coming under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules facilitate exercise of a greater degree of control and authority over local resources by identified groups of people. Recognition of customary practices and protection to traditional systems of management under the constitutional scheme afford the needed support to the local communities to access, use and administer common property resources, over which they have co-equal use right.

This scheme of common benefit sharing; equitable distribution of benefits derivable from the resources; participatory and decentralized resource management, finds its expression through a number of legislative and administrative measures, both at the state and Central levels, initiated between the sixties and the early eighties

Agrarian Reforms

The sixties ushered in an era of agrarian reforms in India. Land was made available to the landless, the tillers was made the land holder, ceilings were fixed on land holdings, land tenancy was abolished and an income limit was fixed for any one to drive benefits out of the reforms package. Karnataka joined the national bandwagon of agrarian reforms in a very big way by passing the necessary reforms in a very big way by passing the necessary legislations Implementation of the legislative dictate also began in right earnest. The effort was further strengthened when certain changes were effected in the Land Reforms Act in the mid-seventies Necessary changes were effected in the Constitution (Articles 3 ] A, 31B and 31 C), and by placing all the legislations on the subject in the Ninth schedule, it was ensured that the law could not be challenged as being violative of fundamental rights. This provided the necessary insulation and protection for the exercise that aimed at economic upliftment of the rural poor.

The political will demonstratably displayed through such policy pronouncements and legislative efforts reflected a mood that desired realisation of the constitutional command.

In order to augment this process of social transformation, legislation to abolish the pernicious bonded  labour system was passed in 1976. Kamataka definitely was in the vanguard of such a movement.

A Reversal of Trends

Two developments in 1995 appear to have reversed this distinct trend of agrarian reforms and pro-farmer stance of the government of Kamataka. The first of the developments concern the amendments effected in the Land Reforms Act. The amendment giving an extended definition to agriculture, enabled private acquisition of land for aquaculture in the Wet Coast area Banning of land transfers effected by the existing law was lifted through the amendment, permitting learning of land for aquaculture. The income-limit for land acquisition was increased from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 200,000 through the amendment. The ceiling on land-holding was relaxed from a maximum of  54 acres to 216 acres. These amendments facilitated agro-based industries and housing societies to acquire agricultural land.

This appears strange and illogical in the light of an adverse finding by the highest court with regard to housing societies.  In P.V.Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collection, Madras (AIR 1965 SC 1017), the Court held that a legislation providing for the acquisition of land for a housing  scheme was not a law for agrarian reforms and hence not protected by Article 31A of  the Constitution. Finding the industries "resorting to various indirect methods of obtaining lands for  their requirements" which at times tended "to defeat the very purpose of the Land Reforms Law”, changes were effected to the existing law, to remove the legal hurdles for land acquisition for industrial purpose! How such an exercise helped ensure that the poor and landless again access to land, and provided the needed impetus for agrarian reforms is very difficult to comprehend.

Draft Agricultural Policy of Karnataka

Close on the heels of the amendment to the land reforms law, the Draft Agricultural Policy of Kamataka (DAPK) has been released. At one end of the spectrum is the criticism the policy is anti-farmer: at the other end there is the official defence that the policy is the most appropriate strategy to create a prosperous rural society in Kamataka. A review of the policy at this juncture is required to test the veracity of these contending claims.

A legislation sets out the limits of state action and individual enterprise besides defining, detailing and defending rights and interests of all concerned. A policy document on the other hand lays down the first principles from which the law and states action draw inspiration. Setting the agenda for the future and providing a launching pad for government sponsored programme the policy resolution reflects the mind set of the political power holders. This aspect also necessitates an examination of the DAPK.

Giving Industrial Status

Noting the dependence of 75 per cent of the population on agriculture, the DAPK feels it imperative to transform agriculture into an important cog in the wheel of the State's economic development. Realising that the industrial sector has been receiving all the incentives and subsidies at the cost and total neglect of the agricultural sector, DAPK displays the determination to put an end to such a discriminatory practice. The policy document aims at giving the necessary impetus "to spur growth in the agricultural and allied sectors by taking advantage of opportunities opened up by trade at national and global level in an overall environment of economic liberalisation". Such a thrust, it is confidently claimed, would generate more employment and out down poverty in rural areas in the days to come. Giving industrial status to agriculture is stated as the ultimate goal. In preparing the ground to achieve that goal, the policy visualizes a period of transition in which incentives and safeguards are extended to agriculture, very similar to the ones extended to industry. Some of the strategies envisaged to accelerate agricultural development are : -  

-       liberalizing availability of credit facilities;

-       establishment of cold storage houses in every collection centre of perishable agricultural produce

-       calculation of the price of the produce and profit derivable therefrom on the basis of all the expenditure incurred on inputs (at is done in the case of an industrial product).

Irrigation

The felt need to enhance the present irrigation system and develop it as a key infrastructure, is going to be met by heavy investment (Rs. 1000 crores). The investment would be in major and medium projects that will have the ability to serve all the villages with irrigation. In visualising this strategy, the policy document has overlooked a study carried out by the State Planning Board. The study finds that large scale irrigation would be a drain on the exchequer and a social liability. Current strategy does not contemplate measures for checking decline in groundwater levels and rehabilitating tanks. Tank irrigation which was considered the mainstay of our agriculture earlier, does not find any place in the scheme of things.

There is a thought given to the necessity of a shift from water-intensive farming systems (including flow irrigation) to less water-intensive farming systems (including flow irrigation) to less water-intensive faming systems. However, there is no detailing in the document as to how this would be achieved.

Public and Private Sector

Different roles are perceived for the public sector and the private sector. While private investments are going to be welcomed in production, marketing and processing, seeds multiplication; high-tech agriculture (floriculture, horticulture, sericulture, dairying, poultry and meat), the public sector investments would essentially be in the creation of the necessary economic R & D: major and minor irrigation schemes: roads: development of markets etc) and social (health and education) infrastructure needed for making agriculture a profit earning proposition for all concerned. In effect, the assigned and to-be-assumed roles would ensure basic infrastructure development (non-profit earning) by the exchequer so as to facilitate private investors to gain economically from the facilities made available, without the need to share the profits with the collectivity and the state (who slogged it out to provide the launching pad!) Where this would leave the cultivator is anybody's guess.

Regarding R&D, the policy document comes up with a blue print of a strategy. Agricultural universities, under the scheme, are to tie up with companies (e.g., seed companies and agro-processing companies) having an interest in agriculture in Kamataka. Scientists would be sent on deputation to these companies, to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from "lab to land". This is the another way of saying that the private capital will guide and set the agenda for academic research. If one may recall, in the GATT negotiations, bowling to the pressure of the United States, such knowledge derived from research was kept out of the WTO regime. This was to safeguard the national interest in research and not to sacrifice it at the alter of private funding. The step was contemplated under the policy plan, can now be seen as a retrograde one as the Kamataka government, through this strategy, would be offering a valuable knowledge-base to the private investor on a platter rather than providing the required protection for it. One can visualise a future scenario where intensive research is carried out to develop high yielding, commercially viable varieties, rather than one where the development of new and better strains of cereals essential for meeting the food demands of our burgeoning population, is encouraged.

Tapping our Export Potential The policy ambitiously proclaims to tap our export potential in fruits, vegetables, floriculture and fish. In order to succeed in this, there is a need to build better infrastructure facilities. This is sought to be achieved by inviting foreign investment in this area. Although the idea is good, it appears a bit naive as it does not take note of the policies and competition existing in international trade. It appears to have overlooked the strict and stringent regulations rigorously enforced on health and environmental considerations in allowing imports, especially in the European countries. Specifications on chemical content and residues in each type of produce make it very difficult for our products to break into the international market.- Refusal to import Indian mangoes by Japan is a case in point. Each advanced country has its own peculiar specifications for quality and appearance of products. (For e.g., bananas having black sport are unwelcome in the European market.   How many varieties of bananas have we developed that are free from such "blemish"?) At times, health and environmental considerations are employed by developed countries to play politics with the Third World countries. Denial of  access to Mexican tuna fish and Indian cotton textiles into some of the international markets illustrates this. Such being the reality, it is wishful thinking that our agricultural produce would successfully overcome the strong invisible barriers for access to international markets.

Subsidies

Withdrawal of existing subsidies in water and power consumption in the agricultural sector is being contemplated. This is claimed to inject an element of responsibility and competitiveness into the sector. Since the cost of inputs would be absorbed in the price finally fixed for the marketable commodity, the farmer would not be the loser. On the contrary, he would be getting the real value for the investments made by him.

The beneficiaries are to pay for the maintenance expenses of the irrigation department. Sale of water and power and tax collection the refrom are to be entrusted to Fanners' Co-operatives established for that purpose. Thus, the users of facilities would be made responsible managers as well. Popular participation in the management of resources is without doubt a very sound principle and the policy document appears to propagate the idea through this scheme. But, the scheme also reveals that when the co-operatives are found to be managing the fee collection process inefficiently, the management would be snatched from them and entrusted to the private sector! The existing state machinery (KEB and revenue authorities) find no place in the scheme. There appears to exist abundant faith in the efficiency of the private operator in the management of resources.

Existing subsidies on chemical fertilisers would also be withdrawn. To mitigate the suffering of small farmers as a result of such a withdrawal, he/she would be encouraged to use organic manure. To meet this demand, the Forest Department would be compelled to grow at least 50 ofGlisodia and Honge trees.

Loan facilities would hereafter be made available at commercially competitive rates. It is felt that this would take away the existing defects in the loan distribution system. The fact that the farmer would be made to pay a higher rate of interest and could avail loan facility only after fulfilling stringent conditions is underplayed.

The policy document expects the export of agricultural products after these sweeping reforms in the system (of subsidies, credit facilities, and resource management) to fetch competitive rates in the international market. While the developed world is capable of recovering its market potentiality through highly developed bio-technology and heavy investment already made in research resulting in better, superior, cheaper and high-yielding varieties of produce, the developing world would lose out for want of development of infrastructure in this regard. Australia has demonstrated this to the developing states in the production of pulses.

The 'Real' Motivations

An examination of the developments at the international level on trade (GATT negotiations) and aid (IMF and World Bank conditionalities) reveals the real 'motivation' behind the 'reforms' contemplated in agriculture through DAPK and the amendment to the Kamataka Land Reforms Act. Withdrawal of subsidies in fertilisers, electricity and Public Distribution System (PDS), implementation of the open market principle, open access to private enterprise in agriculture and industry and reduction in agricultural loan facility form part of the conditions imposed for international trade and aid. Their elevation to the status of principles in the policy document neither demonstrates a visionary approach nor offers hope of a better future for the poor farmer. The legislative effort on land reforms having paved the way for industry to make its foray on agricultural land as well, has added to the woes of the farming community. The Draft Agricultural Policy, closely following the law appears to have hammered the last nail into the coffin of agrarian reforms in Kamataka.

One fails to understand how it is possible to conform to the constitutional model of management by promoting the Agricultural Policy of the Government of Kamataka. The socialistic moorings of the Constitution as strengthened by the agrarian reforms of sixties to early eighties has been very succinctly explained by an administrator who worked the reforms package in the State of Kamataka in the following words:

"...... Social justice should include some arrangement by which the minimum needs of the landless people in each cluster of villages are first met from the land-based output of that area - before any surplus is taken out of it for marketing elsewhere. Economic efficiency would again have to be judged in relation to criteria of preservation of rural assets and conservation of natural endowments of the ecology and those criteria have also to bear in mind the equitable claims of future generations on present endowments" (Rajan, 1986, p. 158). The Agricultural Policy under consideration fails to meet this requirement. One fervently hopes the rest of India will not follow the Kamataka example.

References :

Alamgir, M. & P Arora, Providing Food Security for AH, International Fund for Agricultural Development, 1991.

Constitution of India and Relevant Legislation.

Draft Agricultural Policy of Karnataka, 1995.

National Agricultural Policy Resolution.

Rajan, M. S., Land Reforms in Kamataka, 1986.

Ramesh, M. K., "Agrarian Reforms: Review of Recent Changes in Kamataka" in Voices, vol. 4, no.1,1976.

Ramesh, M. K., "The Kamataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Bill, 1995: A Critique", in Kumkshetra: Special Issue, October 1995.

Valdes, Alberto, F'ood Security/or Developing Countries, West View Press, Colorado, 1981.