In a striking yet peaceful act of protest, farmers affected by the Pangri medium irrigation project in Madhya Pradesh’s Burhanpur district wrapped their bodies in banana leaves and wore teak leaves on their heads on Thursday to demand double compensation for their acquired land, as mandated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Gandhian-style demonstration, held after more than three years of sit-ins, memorandums, and representations, aimed to draw attention to what farmers describe as persistent administrative indifference to their lawful claims.
While the farmers insist that land acquired in rural areas must be compensated at twice the market value, as provided under the Act, the authorities have so far offered only assurances.
State Water Resources Minister Tulsiram Silawat has said the government is “considering” the farmers’ demands, but no clear timeline or formal decision has been announced, leaving affected families uncertain about their livelihoods and future.
Leaves, Law And Livelihoods
The sight of farmers standing silently, wrapped in banana leaves and crowned with teak leaves, turned heads and drew attention in Burhanpur district, not for its spectacle alone but for the depth of desperation it symbolised.
The protest, deliberately non-violent and rooted in Gandhian principles, was designed to convey a message without confrontation: that those who feed the nation are being forced to plead for rights already guaranteed by law.
The farmers are among those whose land was acquired for the Pangri medium irrigation project, a development initiative intended to improve water availability and agricultural productivity in the region. However, for many cultivators, the promise of long-term benefits has been overshadowed by immediate losses.
They argue that the compensation offered to them does not align with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, which clearly states that land acquired in rural areas is eligible for compensation amounting to twice the market value, along with rehabilitation and resettlement benefits.
“We have followed every legal and democratic path available to us,” said one protesting farmer, explaining that the unusual choice of attire was meant to reflect their vulnerability and dependence on the land and forests that sustain rural life.
Protest leaders stressed that the demonstration was not meant to insult or provoke authorities but to appeal to their conscience. According to them, wearing leaves was a way of saying that without fair compensation, they would be reduced to a state of extreme deprivation.
Officials present at the site maintained that the government was aware of the issue. Water Resources Minister Tulsiram Silawat stated that the matter was under consideration and that the administration was examining the farmers’ claims.
However, the absence of a written assurance or deadline has done little to ease tensions, with farmers insisting that verbal statements have been made repeatedly over the years without translating into concrete action.
From Memorandums To Moral Appeals
The latest protest did not emerge in isolation. It is the culmination of more than three years of sustained mobilisation by affected farmers, who say they have exhausted all conventional channels of grievance redressal.
Since the acquisition of their land, they have organised sit-ins, submitted multiple memorandums to district and state authorities, and held peaceful demonstrations, all while continuing to cultivate whatever land remained with them or seeking alternative means of survival.
According to farmer representatives, repeated representations were made to the district administration, revenue officials, and state departments concerned with irrigation and land acquisition. Each time, they were allegedly assured that their demands would be examined, yet no revision of compensation followed.
This prolonged delay has had tangible consequences. Many families report mounting debt, difficulty funding their children’s education, and an erosion of financial stability that once came from farming their own land.
The Pangri medium irrigation project is part of a broader push by the Madhya Pradesh government to expand irrigation infrastructure and increase agricultural output.
While such projects are often projected as engines of rural development, the farmers argue that development cannot be considered inclusive if those who sacrifice their land are left struggling for years without fair compensation. For them, the issue is not opposition to development but the manner in which it is implemented.
Legal experts note that the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, was enacted precisely to prevent such situations by ensuring transparency, consent, and fair compensation.
The Act was designed to correct historical injustices associated with land acquisition, particularly in rural and tribal areas. Farmers involved in the protest argue that failure to implement the law in both letter and spirit undermines trust in institutions and weakens faith in democratic processes.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The farmers’ leaf-clad protest in Burhanpur is a reminder that development divorced from justice can deepen, rather than resolve, social inequalities. When citizens are compelled to resort to symbolic acts to demand what the law already guarantees, it signals a troubling gap between policy intent and administrative execution.
The Land Acquisition Act, 2013, was envisioned as a humane framework that balances the need for infrastructure with the rights and dignity of landowners, particularly in rural India. Delays, ambiguity, and prolonged silence risk turning this promise into an empty assurance.
