Farmers’ Right to
Livelihood: A Study in the light of Corporatisation of Agriculture
K
G Krishnamurthy
Abstract: Agrarian
reform in the 21st century is advancing at a high speed. We read and
hear the claim for Second Green Revolution to meet the food demand of the
World. It is the assumption of the general public that cultivation with traditional
methods yields less and adoption of advanced technology can only earn high
yield to meet the demands, providing higher income to farmers. In ancient time,
agriculture was not commercialised. First through barter system, then by
inception of currency the trade practised and gradually it got commercialised.
In protecting the rights of the farmers agriculture is getting another stature,
i.e., ‘corporatisation’. Technological developments, patenting, geographical
indications, trade marks, etc. have made it very mechanical and at some parts
of agriculture the physical labour is also put aside due to development of
digitalization in agriculture. This evolution contributed much for agrarian
reforms and on one side there is a kind of improvement in the standard of
living of farmers. But on other side there are evidences that the farmers’ position
is worsened to a greater extent. They are not spared with clutches of other
developments like globalisation, modernisation, urbanisation and
liberalisation. This is threatening the life of farmers. Genetically Modified
(GM) products take away the fertility of the land; reproduction is not possible
by processing its seeds, farmers and livestock are subjected to various
diseases (including the agricultural labourers). The expert opinion is that the
sufferings will continue for those who consume these GM foods and the same is
being carried to next generations.Thus the society is witnessing that it is the
farmers’ life which is directly being affected.
The land
grabbing, acquisition of agricultural lands, establishment of SEZs (Special
Economic Zones) in fertile lands, development of industries, erection of
multi-storied complexes in the tank-bed
area, installation of wind mills, weather fluctuations, control of market by
middlemen, corruption, etc. are among others which are violating the right to
livelihood of the farmers. There are many government measures, like
agricultural subsidies, credit at lower rate of interest, establishment of
APMCs, health programmes like Sanjeevini, welfare measures like crop insurance,
cattle insurance, etc., irrigation related facilities, 1551 service, awareness
programs, and also the recent online services which aim at protection of farmers rights to life.
Still farmers are struggling for their livelihood. In this article the author
is intended to make a brief analysis of farmers’ right to livelihood and efforts
of the governments to protect the livelihood of the farmers.
Keywords:
Farmers, Right to Livelihood,
Agriculture, Fundamental Right, Right to Life, Art.21 of Constitution of India,
Corporatisation
of Agriculture
Farmers’ Right to
Livelihood: A Study in the light of Corporatisation of Agriculture
K G Krishnamurthy*
“Liberty cannot be
there to a person having an empty stomach. The Individual’s right to life will
have no meaning if State fails to provide adequate food....Thus the cultivation
by the farmers involves Fundamental Right to cultivate”
-Supreme Court of India in Francis Coralie Case, 1981
What is
‘Livelihood’? Struggling to answer?
‘Doing job and earn for life’ and
‘making a living’ may describe the livelihood. This question, usually
arises when making a life is threatened or damaged or is being destroyed. There
must be something to stand in life. That something involves various activities.
These activities are required for a means of living and called as ‘livelihood’.
The Agriculture is one among others which provides livelihood. It is farmers’
major source of earning to lead a dignified life of their own. They should not
be neglected but respected with honour. It is because a person’s reputation is
a facet of his right to life.[1]
This livelihood of farmers seems to exist in
isolation because the traders rely on farmers to produce goods, processors to
prepare them and consumers to buy them. So there is interdependence between the
agriculture and others. But agriculture was not, and is, in certain parts, even
today, not dependent on others. The farmers were cultivating land with self
labour, use their own manures and forest wastes, traditionally preserving the
seeds for next season out of their own crop. The crop yielded is utilised for
daily life consumption and only the excess was locally marketed. Today’s global
modernity and liberal attitudes have made the agriculture dependent on others.
This new character has put the agriculture under major threat for survival,
putting farmers struggling for their right to life, which is a fundamental
right[2].
This inalienable right ensures right to compensation[3] as
well as right to live with human dignity[4].
The agriculture,
of course, is a work based on the choice[5] for
the livelihood. This choice is enormous and is not controlled by any law,
custom, practice, etc. It is part and parcel of right to life.[6]
Majority of farmers have purely adopted agriculture as their occupation and
remaining others are cultivating along with other business or occupation. The
idea behind it is to serve others and enjoy his livelihood and attain
salvation. It is a natural right. Any provision of law run counters to such a
right, it must be held unconstitutional.[7]
1.0 RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD AND LAND:
With the fast growing changes in industry and
technology and their contribution to the growth of the country though a large,
people who cultivate lands are very much important and without them no one can
survive. There is a co-relationship between farmers and the nation. If this
relationship is damaged the life of both will be in danger along with other
classes of persons. To avoid this danger, under Article 19 (1) (g) the right to
occupation is conferred on farmers along with other rights[8]. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures
life with liberty, and Supreme Court has said that the dignity of person is with
means of livelihood, without which the glorious content of dignity of person
would be reduced to animal existence[9].
The
Right to Livelihood and Land is very closely related to the human right of all
which enables them to live in peace, security, justice and dignity. The farmers
have the natural human right to fulfill dignified work and livelihood,
including equal access to land. Without land a farmer can do nothing. From the
context of farmers it should be a fundamental right to have access to land. By
insertion of Article 300A[10]
to our Constitution, the property right has been categorized as constitutional
right but remained as human right. It prescribes that the Government cannot
interfere with property rights of an individual without the authority of the
valid law[11]
and the consent of the owner[12].
2. ACQUISITION OF LAND V. VIOLATION OF LIVELIHOOD
2.1
ACQUISITION:
As
mentioned above, the state can acquire the property only for public purposes
with valid authority of law[13]
and consent of the farmers. Art.300A ensures that the right to property may be
curtailed, abridged or modified by the State only be exercising its legislative
power and in accordance with due course of law. Any acquisition or resumption
of possession of property by an executive order[14]
or by force[15]
is unconstitutional. The Court has asserted that in the absence of a specific
statutory provision, a person cannot be evicted by the executive by force
without following ‘due course of law even on the ground of public interest’[16]. It
shall be understood that the law should be fair and reasonable and not
arbitrary and the law should also satisfy the principle of fairness in order to
be effective[17].
Thus the law relating to acquisition of property must also satisfy Art.21 of
the Constitution protecting the right to livelihood farmers. It is clearly
observed by the Constitution Bench in Olga Tellis case [18]
that if the right to livelihood is not treated as a traditional right to life,
the easiest way of depriving a person of this right to life would be to deprive
him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. Such deprivation would
not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it
would make life impossible to live. The deprivation, therefore, must be
consistent with the procedure established by law.
It
is held that courts should view with "suspicion" the action of the
government in acquiring land for private parties in the name of urgency.
2.2 COMPENSATION:
In
respect of acquisition of land[19], in
Chameli Singh’s case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that in every
acquisition by its very compulsory nature for public purpose, the owner may be
deprived of the land, the means of his livelihood[20]. It
was further stressed for protection of livelihood of farmers in Sunder v. Union of India[21]
and said, “When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is
entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to
have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing
purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. They are
also entitled to interest on solatium, additional market value.”[22]
The Hon’ble Court has applied the ‘rule of annual increase for grant of higher
compensation’[23] in awarding the relief[24].
Sections 27 to 30 of the LARR[25]
Act, 2013 has provided for determination of the compensation.
Further,
the Supreme Court has shown serious concern over the inordinate delay in
payment of compensation to farmers for land and held that it amounts to
deprivation of livelihood, which is a violation of Article 21 (right to life)
of the Constitution. “Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a
legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete the proceedings at
the earliest and to make payment of requisite compensation. The appeals etc,
are required to be decided expeditiously for the sole reason that if a person
is not paid compensation in time, he will be unable to purchase any land or
other immovable property.”[26]
Justice Chauhan has observed, “It is not permissible for any welfare state to
uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights
under the garb of industrial development… Statutory authorities are not only
bound to pay adequate compensation but there is also a legal obligation upon
them to rehabilitate[27]
such persons. The non-fulfillment of their obligations would be tantamount to
forcing the uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national
activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of ill-treatment.” The enrichment of a welfare state or of its
instrumentalities, at the cost of poor farmers, is not permissible. “Depriving
them (i.e., farmers, having no other occupation or business) of their immovable
properties was a clear violation of Article 21”[28]. It
is inhibited under the provisions[29]
of the LARR Act 2013 (as an exception) if there is no alternative the land may
be acquired by the state for the public purpose.
The statutes have provided for payment of
fair compensation and courts have time and again directed the governments to
provide compensation which is a just equivalent of what the owner has been
deprived of.
In Ranjit Singh’s[30]
case the Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for award of higher
compensation. Still the governments have not come out with clear norms as to
what shall be the compensation, how to determine the market value, how and when
the amount be distributed, etc. We have crossed a century and odd period with
Land Acquisition Act but there no clear provision in respect of payment of
compensation. Even in case of the market value there is a big gap between the
actual market value and government rate. Therefore, land owners having no other
option than approaching the court for higher compensation. The inaction of the
government and making the citizens to approach the court of law is also
amounting to violation of right to life. The government should remove this
anomaly by making a compensation policy. Amidst growing land acquisition rows
across the country the Supreme Court has sadly observed, "We think if the
state formulates a reasonable compensation policy, then these types of disputes
would not arise. We are frequently witnessing these types of problems”.
3. FARMERS AND
CONVERSION OF LAND:
The
farmers’ livelihood is dependent on the land and the produce of the land
protects the right to food of the people. If such land is converted to
non-agricultural purposes it may contribute for the adverse consequences like
reduction in cultivated land, shortage of food, importing of food from other
countries, use of chemicals to grow high yield, land degradation and
degradation in health of consumers (including other living creatures), etc.
It
is to be noted that Section 95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 has provided
for more convenient usage of ‘land for use’ with purpose of agriculture. This has
restricted the farmers or any one to use the land for non-agricultural purposes
without permission of the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the District. The
restriction ensured the protection of the farmers’ rights. But today it is
alarming that many fertile agricultural lands are being converted for
non-agricultural purposes. Section 95 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 is
rarely invoked to refuse the diversion. The diversion of the lands adjacent to
the town limits distanced the Green Belt area. The gross permission for conversion
of agricultural land, the author opines, violates the public interest as well
as constitutional mandates[31].
The English Court has observed, “...Present
day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide
exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or
defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be
exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in
public law or administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different
shades…”[32] The authorities must know the inbuilt
wisdom in the statute which is the mandate of the legislature which represents
the people.[33]
The Supreme Court has observed, “Wherever an agriculturist is in possession of
a land, either as an owner or as a tenant protected by the statute, transfer of
his land for industrial purposes is subject to the conditions regulated by the
Act. It is for the protection and preservation of the agricultural land that
the bar against conversion is created.” It further said, “India is essentially
a land of villages. Although, urbanization and industrialization is taking
place, the industry has not developed sufficiently and large part of our
population is still required to depend on agriculture for sustenance. Lands
are, therefore, required to be retained for agricultural purposes. They are
also required to be protected from the damage of industrial pollution. Bona
fide industrial activity may mean good income to the entrepreneurs, but it
should also result into good employment and revenue to the State, causing least
pollution and damage to the environment and adjoining agriculturists.”[34]
Thus in the guise of development, the rights of the farmers should not be sacrificed
just merely for increased profits of global commerce. It is very much necessary
for the State to curb the conversion of land in a wholesale manner.
Recognising this,
Section 10 is included to the LARR Act which provides for prohibition on
acquisition of multi cropped irrigated lands. Further the Government of
Karnataka has introduced “Krishi Bhagya Yojana” for farmers to promote
agriculture and claimed ‘it has improved the life of about 53 lakh farmers’. In
the 2014-15 budgets the Government of Karnataka has reserved Rs. 500 crore as
grant for ‘Krishi Bhagya Yojana’.[35]
The claim is not undisputed because of the dual mind of the government. On one
side, the Government says that it is committed to protect the farmers’
livelihood; but on the other side, it is granting permission to convert prime
agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes. The National Commission on
Farmers has recommended for taking measure to “prevent diversion of prime
agricultural land and forest to corporate sector for non-agricultural
purposes.”[36]
National
Agriculture Development Scheme, a State Plan Scheme of Additional Central
Assistance launched, by the Government of India, in August 2007 seeks to
achieve 4% annual growth in agriculture through development of Agriculture and
its allied sectors (as defined by the Planning Commission of India).[37] Also,
to provide the States with the autonomy to draw up plans for increased public
investment in agriculture by incorporating information on local requirements,
geographical/climatic conditions, available natural resources/ technology and
cropping patterns in their districts so as to significantly increase the
productivity of Agriculture and its allied sectors and eventually maximize the
returns of farmers in agriculture and its allied sectors[38]. This can be better achieved by causing
amendment to the Schedule VII of the Constitution removing ‘Agriculture’ from List I and
include it in List III[39] or
grant freedom to the States to adopt policies for betterment of agriculture and
livelihood of farmers.
In
improving the livelihood of farmers, the author is also having the opinion
that- i) the productivity of agriculture may be increased if land inequality is
reduced in favour of lower size holdings; ii) if states provides alternative
sources of employment to smallholders in or around their habitation to
supplement their farm income.[40]
Dr. M S Swaminathan has recommended to
encourage non-farm employment opportunities by developing particular sectors
and sub-sectors where demand for the product or services is growing namely: (i)
trade, (ii) restaurants and hotels, (iii) transport, (iv) construction, (v)
repairs and (vi) certain services.[41] If
so reformed, the livelihood of the farmers may be protected.
4. Income of Farmers:
Nearly
98 million out of total 120 million farm holdings are small and marginal
farmers. The sustainability of these farmers is crucial for livelihoods. The high investment, suffering from natural
calamities, farm labourers’ scarcity, costly manures & fertilizers, seeds,
transportation, and others, the effect of globalization and liberalisation,
etc., shows put the farmers on a fatal route. Surviving against all odds, and
despite the low earnings, farmers have worked hard to ensure national food
self-sufficiency. His average household income is of only `52,650
a year.[42] This works out to be only `10,
500 per capita which remains unsecured and has not turned better during
2013. However the employees working (ain
non-agricultural sector) are getting a secured income.[43] Thus results in treating the farmers
dubiously: loans for farmers and assured income for employees. And Government
says it can't provide any financial support to such a large population of
farmers.[44]
Therefore, how to bail-out the farmers is an unanswerable question.
The farmers are providers of food to the
society without making any lobby for their produce and getting lump sum amount
at the mercy of the middlemen and other large producers. They do justice to the
society round the clock the year but the State, somewhere, has forgotten
farmers’ upliftment and their contribution to the society. If we take the
example of government policies, like minimum support price, etc., for
development of farmers’ right to livelihood, though made in the interest of the
farmers, they are not properly being implemented. So the farmers have remained
at great distress. To avoid it, the NCF has recommended for "net take home
income" of farmers which should be comparable to those of civil servants. [45]
5. Agri-credit:
The occupation of agriculture may look like
greenery, but the farmers only know where their shoe pinches. So difficult it
was for them to cultivate at the inception and at present, it is further more
crucial to cultivate due to fluctuating weather, politics, shortage of
agricultural laborers, high input of
capital, etc. There is a gross decline in the profitability of agriculture, and farmers’ distress and
indebtedness have been steeply increased. To ease this situation National
commission on Farmers, in its 3rd report (2006), has recommended for
providing support to the banking system for reducing the rate of
interest for crop loans to 4% during the Year of Agricultural Renewal
(2006-07). This has been implemented by the Government to enhance the right of
livelihood of farmers[46].
In terms of Govt. of India instructions for 2013-14, all the crop loans
up to `3
lakh are being disbursed at the interest rate of 7% p.a. Govt. of India also
provides interest subvention of 3% p.a. to prompt repaying farmers, thus making
available the crop loans to them at 4% p.a. Crop loans beyond `3
Lakh are being disbursed by the banks at the rate of interest as per RBI and
other conditions as approved by their Board of Directors[47] and there
is zero interest on the crop loan up to `1
lakh[48].
Agricultural credit is to be rescheduled as
‘Livelihood Finance’[49] having its aim to enhance the farm
productivity and livelihood of farmers.
The lenders make assumptions that credit for income generating items is repaid
from the income flow generated by the item, whereas agriculture is a
diversified portfolio of livelihood activities and not like an income
generating business.
This livelihood finance should be extended to cultivating individuals
and families, farming group enterprises and farming community development
depending on the demand perspective.
National Commission of Farmers[50]
has opined that the rescheduling and restructuring of farmers’ loans are not good
enough in the event of successive natural calamities. The government of India
may step in to create an Agriculture-Risk Fund to provide relief [waiver in
full/ part of loan and interest] to the farmers in the case of successive
droughts, etc. and also waiver of interest on loans in areas hit by droughts,
floods, heavy pest infestation etc. This Fund
should have contributions from the Central Government, State Governments and
Banks in a predetermined manner.
The
farmers shall stop migrating in search of work securing the livelihood. The
small and marginal farmers can find enough work in the village itself, for
example in brick making, construction work, or farming land as tenants. They
should also stop demanding for free things, finance and others, viz,
talibhagya, annabhagya, etc. from the government. They must themselves develop
entrepreneurship like family farming and work hard to utilise the existing
land. It is the duty on the government to encourage the farmers to think in
this regard and should not make them to be lazy. Farmers’ need is some sort of
concrete financial support[51]
and bring change to the popular saying ‘a farmer is born in debt, and dies in
debt’.
6. Check dams, ponds,
etc:
The
demand for fresh drinking water in the urban areas as well as the rural areas
has created a gross shortage of water for irrigation. The major and small check
dams/ponds are dumped with construction wastes in the name of development. For
example, i) in Sagar of Shivamogga district a major portion of an age old lake
within the town premises with large quantity of water source has been made a
layout and buildings are erected on it. Now the State government is planning to
bring water through pipeline of 30 kilometer long from Linganamakki Dam which
inturn creates a shortage of water for production of electricity. ii) In Hassan
the great Channapatna lake has been completely destroyed and big layout and
large bus stand is constructed on the lake area making highly fertile
cultivable lands down to this lake as barren lands. These types of activities
will have much direct and indirect effect on farmers’ community and also the
general public. These effects may be reduced by reconstruction of check dams at
suitable places and thereby the livelihood of farmers would be enhanced.
The
Supreme Court has rightly observed that the natural resources are national
assets and the state acts as trustee on behalf of its people.[52] It is a duty[53]
to preserve, improve the natural resources and maintain them in proper manner
benefiting for present as well as future generations. Thus, it is
necessitated to construct or reconstruct check dams, lakes, ponds, etc., and
develop a forest planting with mango, jackfruit, and like trees around the
check dams or lakes. The forest so developed, will address the needs of
farmers’ and others, protect water resource, fertility of lands, and the total
environment and also protects lake, etc. from illegal encroachment. By this the
exchequer of the State will also be protected.
7. INDUSTRIAL BASED
AGRICULTURE V. FAMILY FARMING:
Agriculture
has climbed to the top of the international agenda, and small-scale agricultural
producers are now the object of everyone’s attention. Climate change,
environmental degradation, conflicts, agrarian crises and numerous suicides in
many regions, desertification and water scarcity, food-related health issues,
toxic chemicals, the scandal of land grabbing, food waste and commodity speculation,
etc. have exposed the unsustainability of a food system based on industrial
agricultural production and globalized value chains that reward all of the
actors except for food producers and consumers.[54] The
industrial based agricultural production is taking away the rights of the
farmers as well as consumers. To ease, the UN and the World Rural Forum joined
together and declared this year 2014 to be International Year for Family
Farming (IYFF)[55].
It is aimed at stimulating policies for the sustainable development of the
farmer families and encourages and supports the farming system more opt for
indigenous and traditional small-farmers. The IYFF is calling for action to
protect the right to livelihood of the farmers through a human rights approach[56] enhancing a sustainable development by
reducing social and political risk. Our age old system of Joint Hindu Family is
a systematised family farming method adopted in the country. It aimed at
protection of rights of farmers and sustainable development of agriculture. It
is for the Government to promote our age-old and age-less system of Joint Family
by adopting a policy.
8. Farmers and fundamental rights:
The
voyage for opening the horizons of fundamental right began right from A.K.Gopalan's
case[57] wherein
Chief Justice Patanjali Shastri has said ‘wider interpretation to be given to
fundamental rights’ and held- “The insertion of Fundamental Rights in the
forefront of the Constitution coupled with an express prohibition against
legislative interference with these rights and the provision of constitutional
sanction for the enforcement of such prohibition by means of judicial
review...is a clear emphatic indication that these rights are to be paramount
to ordinary State-made laws.” No doubt the laws relating to agriculture which
were made are having intended to protect the interest of the farmers. However
the implementation of these might not be satisfactory. Whenever the provisions
have not been observed or implemented it affects the basic rights of farmers.
In such cases[58]
the court has come to the help of farmers in restoring or protecting the rights
of the farmers.
The
protection and preservation of environment is integral to the culture and
religion of most human communities; nature is seen as an essential part of the
society at large. No human right can be secured in a degraded environment. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court
in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India[59]
and similarly in Subash Kumar v. State of Bihar[60]
had observed that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 includes the right
of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. For
farmers both of these are very much important being provider of food for all
the world and bread winner of the family. From the point of view of saviour of
family it is known that the farmers’ way of life is very much critical. Farmers
being unorganized sector have no voice to lobby before the Government as others
do. The time is advanced to be organized and for another agrarian reform to
protect the right to livelihood of the farming community.
.....Continued in Part 2
.....Continued in Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment