The Land Question in India : State, Dispossession, and Capitalist Transition

358 Pages·2017·1.87 MB·English

by  Anthony P. D'Costa

The Land Question in India

The Land Question in India
State, Dispossession, and Capitalist
Transition
Edited by
Anthony P. D’Costa
and Achin Chakraborty
1
3
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP,
UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship,
andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©thevariouscontributors2017
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2017
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin
aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe
priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted
bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics
rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe
aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe
addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform
andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress
198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016950870
ISBN 978–0–19–879244–4
PrintedinGreatBritainby
ClaysLtd,StIvesplc
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand
forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials
containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Preface and Acknowledgments
The land question in India is a weighty subject and a single volume such as
this is unlikely to do justice to the complexities of the topic. Nevertheless,
there are some core dimensions around which land could be contextualized
and the place of land in economic development re-conceptualized as new
socialforcesimpingeonthevalueandusageoflandandthelivelihoodsthat
depend on them. India, like many other developing countries undergoing
capitalisteconomictransitionandtransformation,offersawidelenstoview
such change through the land question. More distinctively, India, with its
particularformofdemocraticpractices,providesarichlandscapeinwhichthe
conflict between the social obligation of the state to protect its vulnerable
smallandmarginalfamersandtheincreasinglyrapaciousdemandforlandfor
nonagriculturalpurposeshasbecomehighlypronounced.
Thereplacementofthe1894 LandAcquisitionActwiththe2013Rightto
FairCompensationandTransparencyinLandAcquisition,Rehabilitationand
ResettlementActisreflectiveofthisdemocraticsentiment.Whilethestatehas
alwaysexercisedeminentdomainandcompensatedthosewhoselandswere
appropriatedfor“publicpurpose,”rehabilitationandresettlementhavegiven
newmeaningstolandacquisition.The2013acthascertainlyalteredtheterms
andconditionsbywhichlandistobetransactedbuthasnoteliminatedthe
processofdispossession.However,ithasmeantlong,drawn-outnegotiations
over “fair” prices and institutional demands for resettling and rehabilitating
the dispossessed or “project-affected people.” This has slowed the process of
landtransferandthuspresumablynonagricultural-basedaccumulation,while
atthe sametime the Act has provided alegal apparatus by which the acqui-
sitionoflandwouldinevitablybefacilitated.
The significance of land in capitalist transition is well documented. Land,
alongwithlabor,isavitalfactorofproduction.Historically,transformingthe
role of land from a source of subsistence livelihood to a source of capital
accumulation has been fundamental to capitalist transition. Separating the
directproducersfromtheirlandhasbeenastructuralimperativeforprimitive
accumulationandagriculturalsectordynamismandsubsequentexpansionand
diversificationofacapitalistindustrialeconomy.Postcolonialsocietiessuchas
PrefaceandAcknowledgments
India, having inherited colonial structures, favored modern industry as a
responsetosuchstructures;insteadoftheanticipatedstronglinkagesbetween
industryandagriculture,Indiahaswitnessedalaggingagriculturalsector.
Wherestate-ledlandreformsaimedtoinduceruraldynamism,theyinstead
led to supporting livelihoods (or coping mechanisms) for peasants and not
rural accumulation to fund industrialization as experienced by other late
industrializerssuchasSouthKoreaandTaiwan.ItappearstransitioninIndia
has been stalled and land as a source of capital accumulation has been
bypassed. India’s capitalist transition, if it can be called that, is thus argued
tobefollowingatrajectorythatdoesnotentailrisingagriculturalproductivity
andlabor-absorbingindustrialization.Instead,incomefromtheutilizationof
landthroughcultivationcontinuestobelow,eventhoughthemarketvalue
oflandingeneralhasseenameteoricriseduetononagriculturalusagesuchas
industry, infrastructure, real estate (and thus speculation), in the context of
growth-friendlyeconomicreformsledbythestate.
TotacklethesedifferentfacetsofthelandquestioninIndia,includingthe
changingroleofthestateinitspursuitofcapitalistdevelopmentanditstense
relationship with democratic politics, this volume brings together multiple
theoreticalperspectivesandavarietyofempiricaldetailstocriticallyexamine
the place of land in the broader process of India’s economic development
undercontemporarycapitalism.Thechaptersaremostlydrawnfromathree-
day conference held in March 2014 at the Institute of Development Studies
Kolkataandco-organizedbyAnthonyP.D’CostaoftheAustraliaIndiaInsti-
tuteandtheSchoolofSocialandPoliticalSciences,UniversityofMelbourne;
Achin Chakraborty of the Institute of Development Studies Kolkata; and
MritiunjoyMohantyoftheIndianInstituteofManagement,Calcutta.
ThisisthefirstmajorprojectonContemporaryIndiainitiatedbyAnthony
P. D’Costa since joining the University of Melbourne. The Faculty of Arts
Committee, Dean Mark Considine, and Associate Dean (Research) Janet
Fletcher all have been very supportive of this project by providing seed
money to get the project off the drawing board. Amitabh Mattoo, then the
directoroftheAustraliaIndiaInstitute,UniversityofMelbourne,alsocontrib-
utedfundsaspartoftheInstitute’smissionofworkingwithIndianacademic
institutions. The Institute of Development Studies Kolkata and the Indian
Institute of Management, Calcutta also contributed funds to meet all local
expenses.
There have been a number of people who have helped with the logis-
tical aspects of the conference. The operations staff at the Australia India
Institute helped out with the paperwork for participating India-based as
well as international scholars traveling to Kolkata and provided web-based
publicity support. At IDSK, Sanchari Guha Samanta managed a number of
vi
PrefaceandAcknowledgments
organizational aspects of the conference ranging from keeping track of the
abstractsandpapersubmissionstooverseeingthearrangementsatthevenue.
Wewouldalsoliketothankanumberofpeoplewhohelpedwiththecallfor
proposalsfortheconferenceandintellectuallycontributedtothedeliberations
oftheconference.ParthaChatterjeeofColumbiaUniversityandaresidentof
Kolkatapresentedtheopeningpaper,whichhasbeensubsequentlyreworkedas
thePreludetothevolume.AmiyaKumarBagchiofIDSKactivelyengagedthe
participants. For agreeing to chair the sessions and discuss the papers we are
grateful to Sushil Khanna, Hari S. Vasudevan, Anjan Chakrabarti, Manish
Thakur, Manabi Majumdar, Priya Sangameswaran, Dwaipayan Bhattacharya,
andMritiunjoyMohanty.
Anthony D’Costa would also like to thank Adam Swallow, the Economics
Commissioning Editor at Oxford University Press, Oxford. He has thus far
worked with Adam on four projects, the first one in 2004 when he was a
SabbaticalFellowatUNUWIDERinHelsinkiandAdamwasthepublications
manager.Lastbutnotleast,JanetteRawlings,asalways,copyeditedtheentire
manuscript in fine detail. To all these individuals and institutions we grate-
fully acknowledge their help and inspiration. The editors are responsible for
allerrorsandomissions.
AnthonyP.D’Costa
DevelopmentStudiesProgram,UniversityofMelbourne
AchinChakraborty
InstituteofDevelopmentStudiesKolkata
June2016
vii

OUPCORRECTEDPROOF–FINAL,27/2/2017,SPi
Contents
ListofFigures xi
ListofTables xiii
ListofAbbreviationsandAcronyms xv
ListofContributors xix
Prelude:LandandthePoliticalManagementofPrimitive
Accumulation 1
ParthaChatterjee
1. TheLandQuestioninIndia:State,Dispossession,
andCapitalistTransition 16
AnthonyP.D’CostaandAchinChakraborty
PartI.PrimitiveandContemporaryAccumulation
2. FromPrimitiveAccumulationtoRegimesofDispossession:
ThesesonIndia’sLandQuestion 49
MichaelLevien
3. LandGrabs,PrimitiveAccumulation,andResistancein
NeoliberalIndia:PersistenceoftheSelf-Employedand
Divergencefromthe“TransitiontoCapitalism”? 76
ShapanAdnan
4. AgrarianCrisisandAccumulationinRuralIndia:Locatingthe
LandQuestionwithintheAgrarianQuestion 101
ArindamBanerjee
PartII.Legal-InstitutionalDimensionsof“RegimesofDispossession”
5. LawStruggles,Lawmaking,andthePoliticsofHegemonyin
NeoliberalIndia:TowardaCriticalPerspectiveonthe2013
LandAcquisitionAct 129
KennethBoNielsenandAlfGunvaldNilsen