CPM opposes govt decision to amend Sec 118 of tenancy law

The Himachal Pradesh Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has opposed the state government’s decision to propose amendments to Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It has asked the government not to make such amendments to ensure public interest.

Sanjay Chauhan, state secretary of the CPM, in a press statement issued here yesterday, stated that an amendment or relaxation in Section 118 or its rules would not only go against the interests of the poor and the farmers of the state but would also pose a threat to the environment, culture as well as the ecology of the state.

He said, “When Himachal Pradesh attained full statehood, the then state government under the leadership of Chief Minister Dr YS Parmar included Section 118 in the Act keeping the interests of people, especially the rural population, in mind. The objective of the Act was to safeguard the rights of the people of the state over its key resources such as land, forests and water that form the backbone of its economy.”

Chauhan said, “Even at that time, the law included provisions that allowed land to be acquired for various purposes with the approval of the government under Section 118. However, due to the neo-liberal policies being implemented across the country and in the state, successive governments had faced constant pressure from industrialists and corporate houses to amend this law and make it more liberal. Over the years, both BJP and Congress governments had attempted to amend Section 118 but every time, their efforts failed due to widespread opposition from people.”

He added, “Whether it is the BJP or the Congress, both parties, when in power, are eager to amend this law but when they are in the opposition, they pretend to oppose it. This exposes the double standards of both parties and it is clear that when in power, they work under the pressure of capitalists and for the corporate interests.”

The CPM warned the state government that it would launch a mass movement if the Act was amended.