Liu wrote:Christopher Sidor wrote:^^^^^
What you are saying is that India has not experienced land grabbing on a national scale where a party assigns itself the privilege to own land without paying any compensation to the original owners. We do not want such types of reforms. The correct term for such a process is called stealing.
the redistribution of land ownership, whatever you call it( land reform, revolution , Enclosure movement or others) is one of most precondition for industrilazition and modernizaiton.
1. it ( by depriving with force or by buying with money) make land lords class hand out their land and industry enterprise can acquire necessory land for plants and the government can acquire enough land for infrastructure upgrade.
Great Britain finished it by "Enclosure Movement" , Japan, S.korea and Taiwan finished it by semi-forcefully "land_buying by Government. PRC and other Soviet did it by "land reform. those are all one of ways to "the redistribution of land ownership"
2.it turns millions of peasants into industry workers and provide enough cheap labour for industriazlition...
since peasants lose land, they have to enter into urban area and work as industry workers..
3. it turns some of "land lord" callss into industry entrepreneurs....
after selling their land to the government (in Japan, Taiwan and S.korea), those former "land lord" have to invest on industry and it provided the initial fund for industrialzaiton.
As a whole,"land reform" might be miserable to some people, some familty or even some class,bu it indeed benefit the whole country in a long run.
the industriazlation of UK,France,USSR,CHina,Japan,Korea and Taiwan all prove it.
The problem with force, anywhere applied, is that the people towards which force is applied are never willing partners. We in India have also stolen lands from our weakest sections, the tribals and scheduled tribes, so that a cabal of industries can prosper. That is why we are faced with the Naxal menace.
There is another way in which people willingly give up their land. Like they did in Sanand, in Gujarat for the Nano Factory. What happened in Singur, West Bengal when the state tried to force itself on people is there for everybody to see. The difference is that people in Sanad by far and large knew how to profit from giving up their lands. They knew that they could setup hotels, eateries and other ancillary businesses. What happened in WB is that the ruling government could not convince or did not make the case to its citizens properly. It did not make the people partner its plans.
A nation or the state is a collection of people and the land in which they reside. If a nation or state prospers but its citizens do not then that progress is wasted. Such a type of progress is useless. We in India want progress for our people. We want our people to prosper. And that prosperity has to reach every body especially those vulnerable. We do not want a case where India gets richer while Indians get poorer. Soviet collectivization in 1930s led to the worst famine in its history and second only to what PRC had to undergo when it was being ruled by Chairman Mao.