Although the Congress government in Karnataka rode to power in 2023 after a strident campaign against corruption and cronyism, and as a defendant of constitutional values, a series of pro-corporate policies that it has implemented have shown that it is not above placating corporate interests at the cost of people’s welfare.The Siddaramaiah-led government, which implemented its promised welfare guarantees in its early days, has been veering towards neoliberalism so openly of late that even the chief minister’s image as a social justice icon has not been able to justify its policy shifts.The state government has recently approved the opening of 6,000 Karnataka public schools – a scheme funded by the Asian Development Bank in which it intends to close down more than 40,000 government primary schools situated in remote areas in the name of providing standardised and quality education. Many see the move as the Congress’s way of implementing the National Education Policy.Similarly, its most recent decision to club the most backward nomadic castes with the most forward castes within the Scheduled Castes list has betrayed its social justice promises.The Global Investors Meet that has continued with equal fanfare during both the BJP and the Congress’s regimes has hung as Damocles Sword on farmers around Bengaluru.The most telling story of the Congress government’s doublespeak is manifested in its repeated betrayal of farmers of 13 villages around Devanahalli, situated adjacent to the Bengaluru International Airport, which both the BJP and the Congress earmarked for the growth of aerospace and defence industry corridors and over which they are in land-acquisition spree.When 1,778 acres of land belonging to 13 villages around Devanahalli was notified for acquisition by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), the farmers unitedly fought against it for more than three years. Even Siddaramaiah, who was then the leader of the opposition, had promised to de-notify the land for acquisition if elected to power. But he did not act upon this promise. When the final eviction notification was served by the KIADB in March 2025, the farmers’ movement touched its crescendo, attracting the attention of the national and international media. Progressive people’s organisations of the state, writers, intellectuals, artistes and national platforms like the SKM stood with the farmers.The movement forced Siddharamaiah to budge, and the Congress government declared that this particular extent of land in 13 villages will be denotified as a special case. However, it said at the same time that the government will pursue its plan to develop an industrial corridor in and around the area and would keep encouraging farmers to sell the land for the purpose “voluntarily”. Though the progressive organisations celebrated this as a great victory, the threat remained – in disguise – as many observers had then warned.The promised denotification did not happen, and rumours were spread, allegedly at the behest of the state’s industries minister, that if the farmers do not “voluntarily” allow the acquisition, the land would be declared “permanent agricultural zone” rendering farmers completely in a perpetual poverty disallowing them to sell the part of their land even at the time of distress. Meanwhile, a notice was issued to a big section of the farmers who were waiting for the denotification order, to appear for negotiations on the price of the land in the month of October.This enraged the farmers and the movement against the government resumed again. Then the CM intervened and asked the principal secretary to issue a denotification order on November 26 after meeting with farmers’ leaders. But when the government issued a denotification order on December 6, it was more of what one can call a ‘disempowering and reacquiring’ notice at the same time.While the farmers were expecting a simple denotification order, the government came with many disempowering provisions which the farmers never demanded.The order said that thea) The whole 1,778 acres of land is denotified by the KIADB but designated as “permanent agricultural zone” and the same will be mentioned in their land records so that no sale of the land for non-agricultural purposes would be entertained permanently.b) While the aerospace corridor project shall be continued in and around this patch of land, a three-months window will be offered for those farmers who still want to sell their land “voluntarily”.c) This patch shall be developed as an agricultural zone with export orientation, agri-investments, digital marketing and also warehousing.d) The nature of the zone shall be evolved after taking a study tour of similar zones in the neighbouring states and nations.This so-called denotification notice was considered by farmers as almost an exercise in revenge, designed to disempower the farmers and create a coerced situation in which they will have no option but to part with the land “voluntarily”.Seeing the response, the government gave a clarification statement through the secretary for the department of heavy industries but it created even more anxiety since it reiterated and reinforced the fear of the farmers. Despite the government’s assertion that there is no restriction on land sale and that misinformation should be avoided regarding the proposed Permanent Agricultural Zone (PAZ) near Devanahalli, the following legal and policy inconsistencies arise:Absence of demand or consentAt no point have the farmers of Devanahalli demanded that their land – already designated as Green Zone – be converted into a “Permanent Agricultural Zone.” In the absence of an express request or informed consent, the unilateral reclassification of land raises serious questions under principles of participatory governance and natural justice.Arbitrariness and selective state activismThe government has historically failed to address even minimal farmers’demands despite prolonged agitations. In such a context, the state’s sudden insistence on declaring Devanahalli lands as a PAZ, without any farmer-led demand, appears arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with farmer welfare.Contradiction with official policy intent (December 6 government order)The Government Order dated December 6 explicitly states that the Devanahalli region was envisaged as part of a large aerospace and defence industrial corridor, and that acquisition of 1,777 acres was intended as an extension of that project.This admission establishes thatThere is no comprehensive or statewide plan to develop agricultural lands as “Special or Permanent Agricultural Zones.”The PAZ proposal is confined exclusively to these 1,777 acres, indicating a targeted, not policy-driven, intervention.This selective application undermines the credibility of the government’s stated agricultural intent.Imposition of a three-month deadlineIf the State’s objective is genuinely agricultural development, the imposition of a three-month deadline to “encourage” voluntary land transfer to KIADB is legally suspect. Such coercive timelines undermine voluntariness and suggest indirect compulsion.Also read: Did the Karnataka Government Lose the Devanahalli Battle to Win the War?Inversion of policy processDeclaring an area as a Permanent Agricultural Zone before determining its structure, objectives, and operational framework – and only later appointing an expert committee – violates basic norms of administrative decision-making. Policy cannot precede definition.Lack of policy clarityThe government has failed to articulate the purpose, necessity, scope, or legal consequences of a PAZ. Enforcing such an undefined category upon farmers cannot reasonably be described as “farmer-friendly” governance.Violation of the core principle of land sovereigntyThe ideological foundation of the anti-land acquisition movement rests on the principle that farmers possess ultimate authority over their land.First, the state attempted acquisition through KIADB without consent. Now, lands allegedly released from acquisition are being re-designated as a PAZ – again without consent.This amounts to a continuation of state control through reclassification rather than acquisition, effectively bypassing consent while retaining power. Masking this exercise as “green” or “agricultural” does not alter its authoritarian character.Capital-centric orientation of the PAZThe industries secretary has explicitly stated that the purpose of the PAZ is to attract capital into agriculture. This admission reframes the zone as a vehicle for capital penetration rather than farmer protection.Many academic and non-academic studies about the existing ‘Agri Export Zones’ have established that such a project further marginalises the small and landless farmers, and benefits contract and corporate farmers, as envisaged by the three central laws that were repealed by the Modi government after a year-long protest by the Farmers. The irony is even though the Modi government has withdrawn the bills at the Centre, the Congress government has not withdrawn the same at the state; they had been introduced by the previous BJP government.Inevitably, corporate capital requires land. This raises the risk that farmers within the PAZ may be structurally pressured – if not legally compelled – to alienate land in favour of agribusiness entities. The policy therefore appears to safeguard investor interests, not farmer autonomy.The proposed features – cold storage, e-trading, agri-business facilitation, export infrastructure, and warehousing – mirror the architecture of the three widely opposed farm policy instruments:Private agricultural marketsContract farmingPrivate warehousing regimesThese frameworks disproportionately benefit agrarian capital and corporations, while offering minimal protection to small and marginal cultivators who actually till the land.Post-facto justificationThe government’s claim that similar zones exist elsewhere, and that a committee will study their benefits, implicitly concedes that the state does not yet know what benefits will accrue to farmers and that the decision to impose the PAZ predates any evidence-based assessment.This reverses the logic of policy formulation. Moreover, the determination of “benefit” cannot be unilaterally made by the state; it must rest with the affected farmers.Failure to issue simple de-notificationUnlike other cases of land release, the government has deliberately avoided a simple de-notification. Instead, it has imposed an unwanted and undefined PAZ, coupled with deadlines and without consent.The industries secretary’s own clarification – that this is effectively an agrarian capital zone rather than a farmer-centric agricultural zone – further confirms the policy’s true orientation.The PAZ declaration over the 1,777 acres in Devanahalli – without consent, clarity, or necessity – constitutes an anti-farmer, undemocratic, and authoritarian exercise of state power. The only legally and democratically defensible course of action for the government is the immediate issuance of a simple and unconditional de-notification of the said lands.By indirectly endorsing this anti-people policy of the Congress government through inaction, silence or ineffective opposition, progressive forces will only cede the space to fascist forces and strengthen them eventually.Shivasundar is a columnist and activist in Karnataka.