M A I L B A G

Economic or exploitation zones?

The two articles, “Special Real Estate Zones” by A.J. Philip (April 2) and “SEZ is where truth collide” by Pran Chopra (March 31) make interesting reading when read together. The Chopra thesis is that industrialists under the SEZ Act should be persuaded to shift to other occupations because land is no longer fit for profitable agriculture. This question needs a simple approach to the vexed problem of giving thrust to the “export-led growth model”.

According to the NSSO survey, 40 per cent farmers want to give up farming because agriculture is a losing enterprise but still they oppose land acquisition for the benefit of industrial bigwigs. Mr Philip has cogently explained this thus: “It is a gross misuse of the power when land is forcibly acquired from the farmers so that private investors can prosper. Secondly, SEZ has the potential to become a thriving real estate business”.

As farming is a way a life in the country, the farmers and the agriculture labour have skills to undertake only agriculture and similar activities. They or their offspring cannot be absorbed in the capital-intensive and modern enterprises in the SEZ.

Dr PREM SINGH DAHIYA, President, Centre for Dev. & Agri Research, Rohtak

II

The SEZ has indeed been turned into “special exploitation zones” by the Centre and the states. Punjab, “India’s food bowl”, is embroiled in party politics by the Centre on the sharing of water resources. The SEZ’s primary aim is to corner funds. Who cares about the damage to the state’s agricultural capacity, the displacement of landowners and others?

The government looks the other way when it comes to surplus holdings which account for four to six times more than the land under plough. Farmers cannot switch over to other modes off the cuff. It takes generations to adopt new models.

The Centre must plan to provide land from the surplus land holdings through reasonable compensation and providing and operating of infrastructure in such zones should be the responsibility of interested parties.

Lt-Col CHANAN SINGH DHILLON (retd), Ludhiana

III

I endorse Mr Philip’s thesis that SEZs will actually help developers who will get huge tax concessions by utilising the state’s services. The losers will be farmers, agricultural labourers, the government and workers. I agree that India achieved the highest economic growth rate without establishing SEZs.

The issue raises a volley of questions. Where will the farmers go after selling their land to government under pressure? What about the sharecroppers and agricultural labourers who will lose their jobs? Will they get any compensation? Won’t SEZs create regional imbalances? Will the profitable industrial units be also allowed to shift into SEZs? What about the unutilised acquired land? Will it be sold by converting into real estate? What will happen to national food security if thousands of acres of land are acquired for SEZs?

What will happen to those displaced from the acquired areas? Will the government follow the principles of “free-market” when it forces the farmers to sell their land without any “free-choice”? Why can’t the government allow farmers to sell land directly to developers? Why can’t it make the affected farmers shareholders in the projects?

SUDESH KUMAR SHARMA, Kapurthala