Proposal to relax Sect 118 of Land Reforms Act faces opposition in Kullu-Manali region – Tribune India

Report on Proposed Amendment to Section 118 of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A proposal by the state government of Himachal Pradesh to relax provisions of Section 118 of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, has elicited significant concern among local communities. This report analyzes the opposition to the proposal, focusing on its potential conflict with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Key Stakeholder Concerns

Opposition to the proposed amendment is widespread, with local organizations and political figures articulating several critical concerns:

• Economic Displacement: Anup Thakur, president of the Kullu-Manali Paryatan Vikas Mandal, stated the relaxation would be detrimental, allowing affluent non-residents to acquire agricultural land and dispossessing local farmers of their livelihood and ancestral property.
• Socio-Economic Imbalance: Budhi Parkash, chairman of the HP Travel Agents Association, warned that regions like Kullu and Manali would be severely affected, leading to an imbalance as the rural population loses its small agricultural holdings.
• Environmental Degradation: Concerns were raised that relaxing the act would spur commercial construction by external buyers, further overburdening the state’s fragile ecosystem and contradicting the need to maintain ecological balance and prevent natural disasters.
• Internal Disparities: It was noted that current laws restrict Himachali residents from purchasing land in tribal areas like Lahaul and Spiti. Stakeholders argue that internal restrictions should be addressed before opening land sales to outsiders.
• Political Opposition: The Leader of the Opposition, Jai Ram Thakur, has also formally criticized the government’s proposed amendment.

Analysis of Impacts on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed legislative change poses direct challenges to the achievement of several SDGs:

1. SDG 1: No Poverty & SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   The primary function of Section 118 is to protect agricultural land for local farmers. Relaxing this provision could lead to the sale of farmland for non-agricultural purposes, directly threatening the livelihoods of small and poor farmers. This undermines efforts to eradicate poverty (SDG 1) and ensure food security through sustainable agriculture (SDG 2) by converting productive land and pushing agrarian families into economic distress.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   The proposal is perceived as a measure that would exacerbate inequalities. It risks creating a significant economic divide between wealthy external land buyers and the local rural population. Furthermore, it highlights existing internal inequalities, as Himachali residents are barred from purchasing land in certain tribal districts while the state considers allowing outsiders to buy land elsewhere.

3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities & SDG 15: Life on Land

   Stakeholders fear that the influx of external investment will prioritize commercial construction over sustainable development. This could lead to unchecked urbanization, placing immense pressure on local infrastructure and the environment. The call to ban further commercial construction reflects a deep concern for maintaining ecological balance, protecting terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15), and preventing future natural disasters, thereby ensuring communities remain safe and sustainable (SDG 11).

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   Section 118 of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act is a critical legal institution designed to provide justice and protection for the state’s agrarian communities. The proposal to weaken this provision is viewed as undermining a strong institution that has historically safeguarded the rights and identity of the local populace against external economic pressures.

Conclusion

The opposition to amending Section 118 is rooted in the belief that it would compromise long-term sustainable development for short-term economic interests. Stakeholders are urging the Chief Minister to protect the state’s agrarian identity and ecological integrity by rejecting the proposal. The debate highlights a fundamental conflict between unregulated development and the principles enshrined in the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those concerning poverty, inequality, and environmental protection.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The article highlights concerns that relaxing land laws could lead to “wealthy outsiders” acquiring land, pushing “poor and small farmers into economic distress.” This directly connects to the goal of eradicating poverty, as the loss of agricultural land, a primary asset and source of livelihood, would impoverish local communities.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The focus on protecting “agricultural land” and the livelihoods of “local farmers and small landholders” relates to food security. The potential loss of these lands to non-agricultural, commercial use threatens the foundation of local food production and the economic stability of farming families.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article points to a potential increase in inequality. The proposed change is seen as benefiting “rich outsiders” at the expense of the “poor and rustic population,” which would lead to “social and economic imbalance.” It also mentions the existing inequality where Himachali residents cannot buy land in tribal areas, highlighting an internal disparity.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The discussion addresses sustainable development by questioning the impact of commercial construction on local communities. The article mentions the need to protect “Himachal’s agrarian identity and culture” and warns against the state being “overburdened by the commercial construction,” which impacts the sustainability and character of settlements like Kullu and Manali.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  There is a strong environmental connection, with a call to “ban all kinds of commercial constructions in Himachal to maintain ecological balance and avoid natural disasters.” This directly relates to protecting terrestrial ecosystems from unsustainable development driven by land acquisition for commercial purposes.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The entire article revolves around a piece of legislation, Section 118 of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The debate over its amendment, the call for the government to protect the interests of its people, and the opposition from local organizations are all aspects of governance, institutional accountability, and public participation in decision-making.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property.

  The article’s central theme is the potential loss of control over land by poor and small farmers, which is in direct opposition to this target.

• Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land.

  The fear that small landholders will be “deprived of their small agricultural holdings” directly threatens the “secure and equal access to land” required to meet this target.

• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

  The proposed amendment is viewed as a measure that would create “social and economic imbalance,” disempowering the local “poor and rustic population” in favor of “wealthy outsiders,” thereby increasing inequality.

• Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.

  The plea to “protect Himachal’s agrarian identity and culture” aligns with this target, framing the issue not just economically but also as a matter of preserving cultural heritage.

• Target 15.9: By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts.

  The call to “ban all kinds of commercial constructions… to maintain ecological balance” is an argument for integrating ecosystem values into the state’s development planning, which the proposed amendment is seen as ignoring.

• Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

  The article documents the opposition from various local organizations like the Kullu-Manali Paryatan Vikas Mandal and the HP Travel Agents Association, representing a call for the government to be responsive to the concerns of its citizens and engage in participatory decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for Targets 1.4 & 2.3: Proportion of agricultural population with secure tenure rights to land.

  The article implies this is a key metric. The existence and enforcement of Section 118 is a measure of secure land tenure for locals. Any relaxation of this law would be a negative indicator, suggesting a decrease in the security of land rights for small farmers.

• Indicator for Target 10.2: Patterns of land ownership by economic status and origin (local vs. outsider).

  While not explicitly stated with data, the article implies that a key measure of rising inequality would be the amount of agricultural land transferred from local smallholders to wealthy individuals from outside the state.

• Indicator for Targets 11.4 & 15.9: Rate of conversion of agricultural and forest land to commercial use.

  The statement that “outsiders will purchase land in Himachal for commercial construction purpose” and the call to “ban all kinds of commercial constructions” imply that the rate of land-use change is a critical indicator of whether ecological balance and cultural identity are being maintained.

• Indicator for Target 16.7: Government’s final decision on amending Section 118.

  The government’s ultimate action—whether it proceeds with the relaxation, modifies it based on feedback, or shuns the idea as requested—will serve as a direct indicator of its responsiveness to the participatory efforts of the local community groups mentioned in the article.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: tribuneindia.com