Public understanding of rural forced eviction has inexorably conformed to a stereotype: acquisitive and merciless local governments versus helpless but pigheaded rural householders.

This sentimental depiction may eclipse the real dynamics of the most massive urbanization ever, which may jeopardize farmers' proprietary interests but could also completely transform the essence of rustic life and industry.

Over the past several years, idealistic ambitions, which often addresses the problem of rural poverty through economic or technological approaches, has caused many unexpected results.

It is tempting to draw a parallel between the idealistic "New Village Movement," a national policy set in 2005, and the current loss of farmers' land, criticized as a "New Enclosure Movement."

The New Village Movement, when it emerged, was expected to be the antidote to rural deprivation. More government investment, better public services, and more technological input were announced. The ecstasy climaxed as the agriculture tax was abolished at the end of 2005, a move which convinced many people that chronic disease like poverty and corruption will be cured by central government's determination.

But now, many people believe that the New Village Movement has gone in a way that its planners failed to anticipate: in the form of radical farmland arrogation and rural housing conglomeration - forcing farmers out of their own houses and accommo-dating them together in multi-storey buildings constructed by the government.