In India, despite steady growth in industrial, infrastructure and service sectors—including the software industry—in recent years, the economy essentially remains agriculture-based. Agriculture continues to be a strong, sustainable and stabilising force in the Indian economy, and this reality is likely to persist for the foreseeable future. Any policy approach that undermines this foundation, therefore, calls for serious scrutiny.
India’s agricultural land area has steadily declined over the decades, decreasing from about 189.6 million hectares in 1950–51 to around 181.9 million hectares in 2014–15. This trend has continued in subsequent years. Converting agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes such as infrastructure development, industrial projects or housing is a counter-productive policy choice that carries severe short-term and long-term consequences. Once agricultural land is converted for roads, airports or factories, it becomes permanently unsuitable for cultivation. Such conversion is irreversible and results in a permanent loss of productive land, displacing a large number of agricultural workers and uprooting the livelihoods of millions of families who depend on farming for survival.
Those who argue in favour of selectively converting agricultural land often cite comparative GDP contributions. Agriculture currently contributes about 17.94 per cent to India’s GDP, compared to 54.93 per cent from services, 27.13 per cent from industry and around 8.75 per cent from construction. This line of reasoning, however, reflects a narrow and incomplete understanding of national welfare. It ignores the central role agriculture plays in food security, employment, social stability and economic resilience. A purely statistical comparison of sectoral GDP shares fails to capture the broader, holistic importance of agriculture to the country.
Food security and self-sufficiency are fundamental to social stability in any nation, and this is especially true for a populous country like India, which has one of the highest population levels and densities in the world. Although the Indian economy has been growing at a reasonable pace, a substantial proportion of the population continues to live at or near the poverty line. Ensuring that the entire population remains adequately fed is a national obligation, even when sections of society cannot afford basic food requirements. This is why governments continue to provide free or subsidised rice, wheat and other essentials to millions of households. Such arrangements will remain necessary for years to come, until living standards improve significantly across the population.
Agricultural production is inherently dependent on seasonal and climatic factors. Excessive rainfall, droughts or other natural variations can sharply affect output at any time, making it difficult to accurately predict future production levels, unlike factory-based manufacturing. This uncertainty makes the maintenance of adequate buffer stocks of food grains critically important to meet requirements during lean periods. History shows repeatedly, across different parts of the world, that food shortages and the resulting hardship are among the primary triggers for social unrest, riots and violence. From this perspective, sacrificing agricultural land and production capacity represents a calculated risk that India cannot afford to take.
In recent years, production of crops such as rice, wheat and sugar has reached relatively high levels, creating an impression of surplus and leading to filled warehouses. However, this situation should not create complacency. In the recent past, India has also been forced to import commodities like sugar due to sudden declines in production caused by adverse seasonal conditions. Moreover, the country’s warehousing capacity remains inadequate. On several occasions, food grains such as rice have been damaged due to exposure to rain and sun for lack of proper storage. The urgent need, therefore, is not to reduce agricultural land, but to expand and modernise warehousing facilities to preserve buffer stocks under proper conditions.
A temporary surplus in certain years has created a misleading perception that India consistently produces more food than required, prompting some to justify the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural uses. Such views overlook the year-to-year variability of agricultural output and the risks associated with unpredictable climatic factors beyond human control.
Public opposition to the acquisition of agricultural land is another critical dimension of this issue. Almost every proposal by governments to acquire farmland for non-agricultural purposes has met with widespread protests from farming communities. Such decisions generate deep uncertainty and anxiety among thousands of agricultural workers across the country. For instance, the proposal to acquire around 3,500 acres of agricultural land for a new airport near Chennai has triggered strong resistance from farmers. Similarly, the plan to acquire about 1,000 acres near Hosur in Tamil Nadu for an industrial estate has faced sustained opposition. There are numerous such examples across India. While governments attempt to pacify farmers with compensation packages or rehabilitation measures, these offers often fail to address the core issue: most farmers possess skills specific to agriculture, and monetary compensation alone cannot ensure lifelong livelihood security.
What makes the continued acquisition of fertile agricultural land even more questionable is the existence of vast stretches of wasteland across India. The country has about 63.85 million hectares of wasteland that remains largely unutilised and is spread across different regions. This includes gullied and ravinous land, scrubland, waterlogged and marshy areas, saline and alkaline land, degraded forest land, degraded pastures, sandy areas, barren rocky regions, and even mining and industrial wastelands. With appropriate planning and land-specific strategies, significant portions of this land could be reclaimed or adapted for industrial, infrastructure or other development projects suitable to their characteristics.
Despite this potential, there appears to be little serious effort by governments to systematically reclaim and utilise wasteland for productive purposes. Instead, the easier option of acquiring already productive agricultural land is repeatedly chosen. Given India’s high population density, there is also a strong case for redistributing population and economic activity through innovative planning that focuses on developing such underutilised regions.
India’s population is currently estimated at around 1.45 billion. Although fertility rates are declining and family sizes are shrinking, the population continues to grow at roughly 1.5 per cent annually and is projected to reach around 1.8 billion by 2050, possibly even earlier. At the same time, unemployment remains a pressing national concern. Nearly 30 per cent of the population is in the 20–29 age group, and ensuring adequate employment for this youth cohort is essential to prevent social unrest—yet this remains a major challenge for policymakers.
Around 43 per cent of India’s working population is engaged in agriculture. While mechanisation has already led to a marginal decline in agricultural labour demand, large-scale conversion of agricultural land would further intensify unemployment. Industrial and infrastructure projects simply cannot generate employment on the same scale or with the same absorptive capacity as agriculture. This potential loss of livelihoods appears not to have been adequately factored into policy decisions related to land conversion.
Justifications commonly offered for converting agricultural land—such as the claim that only a small percentage is being acquired, that food stocks are in surplus, or that non-agricultural sectors contribute more to GDP—are flawed and unacceptable. Such arguments reflect a lack of responsible, holistic analysis. The reality is that the Indian economy will continue to remain agro-based to a significant extent. Any policy that undermines this foundation is wrong both in substance and in spirit.
Discussions on the conversion of agricultural land should not be reduced to narrow, statistics-driven cost-benefit analyses conducted by desk-based researchers. They must instead be grounded in long-term national interest, food security, employment stability and social harmony. Under no circumstances should productive agricultural land be sacrificed for non-agricultural purposes in India.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice for the Deprived, Chennai
Comments