Study impact of policy before changing it

Policy on farmlands must not be overturned for political reasons.

In 2020, when the BJP government led by B S Yediyurappa was in power, Karnataka adopted a legislation removing almost all restrictions on the purchase of agricultural lands, amid strong protests from the then opposition Congress. Prior to that, a non-agrarian family and those with non-agricultural income of more than Rs 25 lakh annually could not purchase farmlands.

The Congress had accused the Yediyurappa government of colluding with the real estate lobby and corporates. Now, with the Congress in power, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has announced that the government would roll back the changes made in 2020. 

The policy has its own set of supporters and detractors. One argument is that thousands of acres of land in Karnataka had turned fallow and were uncultivable due to farmers’ financial constraints. With well-earning people from the cities showing interest in owning farmlands, some even fancying shifting from technology industry jobs to agriculture, the relaxations would enable farmers to obtain good rates for their properties and also help replenish fallow lands.

Besides, it was felt that a farmer should not be compelled to continue with agriculture as a vocation all his life and should be able to exit if he so wished. The 2020 law also permitted industries to buy land directly from farmers. The earlier restrictions, the then BJP government had argued, had led to massive corruption as many misrepresented facts and bought agricultural land with the connivance of local authorities. In the last 45 years, over 80,000 such cases were registered.

The Congress, which had claimed that farmlands worth Rs 50,000 crore would be lost, had said that the liberalised policy would destroy rural economy and cause food scarcity in the future. Farmers would also be coerced into selling their land by powerful people, the party had said.

While both sides have a point, the government would do well not to take a hasty decision. It is now over three years since the revised provisions came into effect and some amount of data will be available to gauge its impact, positive and negative. The government should appoint an expert committee to consider, among others, the following questions: Has the land under cultivation reduced drastically as the Congress had feared? Has there been a replenishment of fallow lands? Has food production been affected? Have farmlands been converted for commercial purposes? Has fresh investment led to modernisation of farming?

While a provision may be supported or opposed theoretically, empirical data from the ground should be the basis for policymaking. Any decision taken by the government now should be based on credible data points in the interest of farmers and the state, and not merely because the provisions were introduced by the previous regime.