Read an article on the website of Times Of India, “The new shifting agriculture…..” The term, when heard initially, brings to us the definition taught to us in seventh grade as an Agricultural system in which plots of land are cultivated temporarily, then abandoned, an age old method of cultivation adopted by farmers.
But, here this article goes a step ahead. The shift today crosses national frontiers, or rather takes a leap across our continent. The news piece, “The new shifting agriculture: Shopping for fields overseas”, acquaints us how a few developed and developing countries, tired of the FOOD CRISIS prevailing in their countries, have found a new stress free solution to it.
DON’T HAVE SPACE IN OUR COUNTRY??? LET US GO SHOPPING IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!
India in this scenario, for a change is not a seller but a prospective buyer. The idea in India is the brainchild of the Hooda Committee (comprising of B S Hooda, with CMs of West Bengal, Punjab and Bihar) who suggested that like many other countries who have "shopped for land abroad for growing crops to meet consumption needs", Indian companies could also be encouraged to buy lands in other countries for producing pulses and edible oils. The countries listed included Argentina, Myanmar and ASEAN countries where the government could possibly facilitate land acquisitions.
The committee is seen to be following a global trend legitimized in UN lingo as "large scale land acquisitions", which an NGO quotes is being simply and perhaps, more appropriately, called "land-grabbing".
The list of the buyer countries is topped by our large sized neighbour, China, acquiring to 3 million hectares of land in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone for palm oil cultivation, followed by Saudis who have already acquired 700,000 hectares of land in desperately poor countries like Senegal and Mali. Investors from UAE acquired close to 800,000 hectares of farmland in Pakistan and South Korea has acquired 465,000 hectares in Madagascar.
The writer then informs that these land acquisitions further impoverishes poor farmers in countries where these lands are being acquired even as dictatorial regimes there are willing to sell their most valuable assets for a song to private capital. Most of the land acquisitions are happening in countries that have some of the highest rates of child malnutrition and are hunger hotspots. It is also a myopic solution, fraught with many risks, including displacing local labour and destabilizing local governments.
As taught by every dictionary isn’t Development synonymous to betterment, growth, progress and promotion?
If a country is big enough to carry out development in its own boundaries stamping the agricultural areas with huge buildings or in case of our country Special Economic Zones (SEZs) then does that give us the right to go in other people’s land who anyway our living in distraught conditions?
I say no, this measure adopted is going to be problematic in future even if it looks like a rosy solution now. Money if used wisely in buying those crops from the poor farmers in these countries might be looked at as an alternative...
But, here this article goes a step ahead. The shift today crosses national frontiers, or rather takes a leap across our continent. The news piece, “The new shifting agriculture: Shopping for fields overseas”, acquaints us how a few developed and developing countries, tired of the FOOD CRISIS prevailing in their countries, have found a new stress free solution to it.
DON’T HAVE SPACE IN OUR COUNTRY??? LET US GO SHOPPING IN OTHER COUNTRIES!!!!!
India in this scenario, for a change is not a seller but a prospective buyer. The idea in India is the brainchild of the Hooda Committee (comprising of B S Hooda, with CMs of West Bengal, Punjab and Bihar) who suggested that like many other countries who have "shopped for land abroad for growing crops to meet consumption needs", Indian companies could also be encouraged to buy lands in other countries for producing pulses and edible oils. The countries listed included Argentina, Myanmar and ASEAN countries where the government could possibly facilitate land acquisitions.
The committee is seen to be following a global trend legitimized in UN lingo as "large scale land acquisitions", which an NGO quotes is being simply and perhaps, more appropriately, called "land-grabbing".
The list of the buyer countries is topped by our large sized neighbour, China, acquiring to 3 million hectares of land in the Democratic Republic of Congo alone for palm oil cultivation, followed by Saudis who have already acquired 700,000 hectares of land in desperately poor countries like Senegal and Mali. Investors from UAE acquired close to 800,000 hectares of farmland in Pakistan and South Korea has acquired 465,000 hectares in Madagascar.
The writer then informs that these land acquisitions further impoverishes poor farmers in countries where these lands are being acquired even as dictatorial regimes there are willing to sell their most valuable assets for a song to private capital. Most of the land acquisitions are happening in countries that have some of the highest rates of child malnutrition and are hunger hotspots. It is also a myopic solution, fraught with many risks, including displacing local labour and destabilizing local governments.
As taught by every dictionary isn’t Development synonymous to betterment, growth, progress and promotion?
If a country is big enough to carry out development in its own boundaries stamping the agricultural areas with huge buildings or in case of our country Special Economic Zones (SEZs) then does that give us the right to go in other people’s land who anyway our living in distraught conditions?
I say no, this measure adopted is going to be problematic in future even if it looks like a rosy solution now. Money if used wisely in buying those crops from the poor farmers in these countries might be looked at as an alternative...
bhanu haven't you heard "might is right".international politics does not work on the principle of just and fair. however if the indian decision adds on a ethical component, usage of modern technology and upgrading the skills of the locals, plowing some part of the income back into the land acquired and also providing a health and education component with agriculture, development with profits is surely achievable. Tata's have been following this model for years in backward areas of India.
ReplyDeleteAgreed that usage of modern technology and upgrading the skills of the locals, plowing some part of the income back into the land acquired might lead to developments.
ReplyDeleteBut the findings of this article clearly state that this is no the case.
1 The poor in those countries are not given their rightful profit out of their own lands because that off course will cut the margin of profit for the buyer's countrymen.
2 The purpose of this shifting is not carrying out development or educate the masses in those countries but feed their own people.
3 Tata is carrying out development in his country which is acceptable as he can relate to sentiments of his own country folks