The Castle

So, the twin villages of Bhatta-Parsaul are in news, hot for their political suitability, readily available for manipulation.
It all started with duel between local farmers, protesting acquisition of their land, and administration. The farmers' protest was going on for last four months. No one was heeding. Local DM on the fateful 9th may, went to the village to amicabely settle the issue (Or Crush the Protest...Who knows). Villagers fired back and DM-SSP got hit by a bullet, each, and as they say, rest is history now. Congress youth icon Rahul Gandhi's surprise early hour visit, created a political furore. Since then, The B-P villages (Bhatta-Parsaul) have not ceased from headlines. There are lot of talks, about forcible land acquisition, about police atrocity, about rape and murders, about mission up, about taking on BSP etc.
Amid this brouhaha, I saw a movie named, The Castle on TV. The australian movie is based on an old saying, A man's home is his castle.
The Castle, a 14 year old film has been categoriesd of comedy genre. But, in my view, the film is based on broader social issues, such as forcible land/property acquisition by government, in the name of greater common good, currently faced by B-P villages.

First about the movie.

Story of the film is about Kerrigan family and its patriarch, Darryl. A commoner, Darryl made a house just outside the city of Melbourne, near its then fledging airport and dreamt of it becoming a hot property in his later life. Darryl's dream never came true, as noise of the airport, kept settlers away from the area. But Kerrigan family was happy within their sphere and in his view, he was spending a quality time with his beloved family. Suddenly Darryl gets a notice from the local government, which plans to forcibly acquire the house of Kerrigans and its neighbourhood. It was part of the plan of the company, operating the nearby airport, to built a huge goods terminal on that part of land. An alternate tract of land was also available, but it would have been more costly for the company as this alternative was a lowland. So the local government and the powerful company deemed it better to evict families from their beloved homes, than going for the other option to make goods terminal for the airport.

Happily living Kerrigans were suddenly in a conundrum. They had no money to buy a big mansion, and the offering of the company and government was too low to even buy a two bedroom apartment. Facing a question of choosing between life and death, Darryl decides to give a chance to fight the all powerful government and its corporate partner. Darryl hires his good friend but very bad lawyer Dennis Denuto, to fight his case and expectedly loses the suit as Dennis has no argument against acquisition other than that, 'this is against the vibe of constitution'. During the trial, Darryl befriended an old man, who had come in court to watch his son argue his first case as barrister. The Federal Court dismisses Kerrigan's suit and oreders to vacate his beloved home within two weeks. Resigning to their fate, the Kerrigans start packing.

Suddenly, their door is knocked by a former QC (Queen's Counsel) Lawrence, whom Darryl had met outside court, when he came to watch his son's first argument. Lawrence offers to fignt their case in Australian High Court, for free. During the trial, Lawrence was almost knocked down by highly paid corporate lawyers of the defendents, (the airlink company, which was in cahoots with local melbourne government). when court announced a recess. Going out, Lawrence and Darryl talk a bit. Then Darryl, a commoner, only technically literate, provides armour of thought, solid arguments to Lawrence. Unknwoingly, Darryl was sharing with his friend only his emotions, which later made bulk part of QC Lawrence's arguments.

During conversations, Darryl asks innocently, "How can they takeover my home? I had made it with a purpose, purpose of quite living, raising my children. How, how can they uproot my family all of sudden. Scolding the compensation offered, Darryl asks glibly, "They are offering 70 thousand dollars for my house, but can they compensate my home? How can they compensate the time I had spent with my family in that home? Can they compensate the quality time, we spent there, our sweet memories, our shared emotions. He asks his friend lawyer Lawrence, It is not just a house made of brick and mortar and filled with furnitures and other utensils. It is my home built with love and shared memories. Is it just to be compensated for only the house?"

Later, Lawrence quoting extensively from Darryl's talk, argues before jury that this compulsory acquisition must be on just terms, as defined by Australian Constitution. And it is not just to rob a family of its home of shared memories. Finally, Australian High Court rules in favour of Kerrigans, and as they say, they lived in their home happiley ever after.

One can question, what is the context of relating this movie with B-P villages. Like a home is castle of the man, piece of land carris the same value and emotions for a farmer. Those whow compulsorily acquire farmers land can compensate the physical value, whatsoever, but can't compensate for the emotion the piece of land carries.

Let my explain with my own experience.

Our family has been of public servants. Our grand parents served in government offices in various capacities over the past century. But being migrants in our present village, their primary concerned remained to acquire as much land as possible, as they had nothing to pride in the village. Due to the our grand parents persevarance we now are Zamindar Family in the village. around a fourty years ago, our family lost almost 7 Bighas of land for developmental purposes of government. The state forcibly acquired our land to build a pukka road, which was greater common good. We had no option but to agree. We got meager sum of rupees 700 hundred as compensation.

Though our surrounding land prices inflated heavily, due to this newly built road, my grandfather, never came to terms of this loss of land, due to forcible acquisition. And, we could benefit with this inflating prices of land only by selling it, not retaining. And selling is not an option for us. Once in lighthearted mood, I suggested my grandfather to sell part of land to get it develop as marketplace. I put my logic on the theme that with this commercialization we would benefit ultimately, as this again would inflate our land prices. My grandfather was aghast with my this proposal. He wept and pleaded with me very emotively, 'Never even think of selling this land. Its our mother, giver of bread and butter and final resting place of the family'. He said, presently you are working very far from home, but once you will be done working in life, you will need a place to spend part of your Vanprastha life, then this village, this land will provide you a place of solace.

This is the importance of land in a farmer's life. It is not just a form of capital, it is part of family.

Sure, sometimes we can't avoid forcible land acquisition to have development, but in my view to avoid situations like Bhatta-Parsaul, this compulsory acquisiton should be on 'just terms' as Lawrence told to Jury in Australian High Court, on behalf of Kerrigans. At least, the government should try to sooth the hurt emotions of the people losing land and not terrorize them like Mayawati goverment did in B-P villages.