*WHOSE LAND IS IT ANYWAY?*
*An open discussion on the relevance and implications of *
*Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 200 and*
*Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2009*
*Saturday, November 21, Gandhi Peace Foundation, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg,
New Delhi 2 - 6 pm.*
The current economic model of growth prevalent in India, with strong
neo-liberal leanings, needs to be re-assessed in the wake of increasing
alienation and dispossession of vast populations from their land and the
wave of resistance, both violent and non-violent, against such activities
that are being played out in many parts of the country.
In the wake of an armed operation against escalating Maoist insurgency;
adivasis, particularly in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal Orissa,
Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra are stiffly resisting the industrial
development that threaten their traditional way of life; farmers around the
country raging against acquisition of their lands in the name of growth and
development - the importance of revisiting the proposed Land Acquisition
(Amendment) Bill, 2009 (LAA) and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2009
(R&R) is paramount, if not imperative.
We the struggling communities from different regions of the country
have resisted
the government’s machinations of enacting a faulty Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Act and introducing amendments to the Land Acquisition Act,
promoting private and corporate interests over public good. We gathered
recently in Delhi in July 2009 and our struggle gained a significant boost
when the Acts could not be passed in the Budget session of the Parliament.
We have been in Delhi since 18th November and held meetings at Kanjhawala,
Jantar Mantar and JNU and explained our concerns on these two Bills but also
on the fires raging in the country and the path of growth on which the
country is being pushed today.
*It is in this context that we invite you to discuss the relevance and
implications of these half hearted measures for the millions of people who
are struggling to retain their means of livelihood and seek meaningful
rehabilitation from a system in which they no longer seem to have faith.*
The Panellists for this meeting are:
- *K B Saxena, **Former Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development and
Agriculture, Union of India now at Council for Social Development, New Delhi
*
- *Ramaswamy Iyer, **Former Secretary, Ministry of Water resources, Union
of India and Government’s nominee on the Sardar Sarovar review Committee now
at Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi*
- *Sanjay Parikh, **Senior Counsel, Supreme Court of India.*
- *Roma*, *Kaimur Kshetra Mahila Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, NFFPFW*
(Sonbhadra)
- *Gautam Bandopadhyay, **Nadi Ghati Morcha , Chattisgarh*
- *Dayamani Barla, **Adivasi Mulnivasi Astitva Raksha Manch, Jharkhand,
INSAF *
- *Sandhya Devi,* *Kalahandi Mahila Mahasangh, Orissa*
- *Praffula Samantray*,* **NAPM Orissa*
- *Medha Patkar, **Narmada** **Bachao Andolan & NAPM*
*MODERATOR: Anand Mazgaonkar, **Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, NAPM Gujarat** *
* *
Do join us !
Yours Sincerely,
Madhuresh Kumar (9818905316) & Rajendra Ravi
(9868200316)
*******************
*
WHOSE LAND IS IT ANYWAYS ?*
*A Proposal for an open discussion on the relevance and implications of*
*Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 200 and*
*Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2009*
* The Context*
Hanging precariously between the tenacious pursuit of ‘economic growth’ by
the Indian Union and the need to develop sustainable models in the face of
the current economic and environmental crisis that faces the world at large;
is the fate of more than a million Indians; those who live in village
communities, urban slums, in hills and forests; those who pay the ‘real’
price of India’s growth.
A cursory glance at newspapers and opinion magazines would give one a
glimpse of the socio-economic crisis that is only growing in quantum,
affecting India’s *people* and administration alike. The stories are all
similar in their narrative, changing only in detail – Dongria Kondh tribals
in Orissa’s Niyamgiri fighting to save their hills from Vendanta Resources’
plans to mine bauxite; farmers in Kanjhawala refusing to give up their
fertile land for industrial purpose; SEZ audits where dispossessed farmers
and landless labourers talk about their life after dispossession, steeped in
further penury.
Everywhere the question is one and the same: that of dispossession of people
from their *land*, with other natural resources – water, forests, minerals,
fish and *identities of the people linked to that land.*
The shift in Government policies, with regards to growth and development has
resulted in a quantum increase in the number of economic activities being
undertaken, that are adversely affecting the people of rural India. An
increase in the number of large hydro-power projects in the states of
Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, North-east, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh;
SEZs converting prime agricultural land for industrial activity; mining and
steel plants with hundreds of MoUs being signed in the central Indian states
of Orissa, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh – all of these are putting enormous
pressure on the people who are being made to pay the ‘price’ for such
‘development’, while not accruing even a fraction of the benefits
themselves.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with overarching principle of *‘eminent
domain’* has rightly been regarded as a source of colonial oppression that
has continued till date. From various critiques decrying the role of the
State, to no resettlement, but mere and meager cash compensation, this law
has been the cause of worry, woe and wrath for millions of people –
adivasis, dalits, farmers and fish workers and people’s movements, for
decades. Furthermore, the over-zealous and needless invocation and
imposition of the ‘*urgency clause*’ in almost all cases of acquisition for
supposed development or industrial purposes, thereby snatching away the
fundamental right to raise objections is gradually breaking down people’s
faith in the rule of law. Even though the Government does seem to attempt to
include various schemes to reach out to the rural India like NREGA, it is in
these policies that precious little has been done to undo the damage of the
past years. The government lacks in sincerity since even after nearly three
years of enacting Forest Rights Act not much community rights over forests
have been give to the Adivasis.
While “the systematic alienation” of the adivasis, recognized by Dr.
Manmohan Singh recently is indeed laudable, it comes perhaps too late and
without any concrete actions to redress the injustice inflicted. On the
other hand, it is the policies of the same government that are causing much
resentment within the civil society and social movements across India for
the far reaching consequences it will have on the lives of millions of
people.
The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2009 and the Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Bill 2009 are two such legislations that deal with the fate
and future existence of vast populations in India.
*Land Alienation and its Consequences*
The rising wave of Maoist insurgency and the Government-led Operation Green
Hunt is just another example of how continued exploitation, alienation and
dispossession can lead people to a violent struggle to save their
traditions. In fact, a recent Government report, ‘State Agrarian Relations
and Unfinished Task of Land Reforms’, Vol I, commissioned by the Ministry of
Rural Development in January 2008, makes a direct correlation between the
alienation of the adivasis from their lands in central India and the
rapidity with which Maoist influence is growing.
Amongst other things, the Report also takes note of shift in land usage;
from agricultural to non-agricultural activity, throughout the country. The
report also goes on to say that, “*More importantly, inequitable
distribution of benefits from the new land use, insufficient quantity of
compensation, and rehabilitation, not operationalised properly, is leading
to enormous dissatisfaction among the project affected people*.”
*The Contention*
The new LAA and R&R Bills have been the topic of much controversy and
debate, both within the political circles of the current UPA (II) government
and the civil society organizations involved with peoples’ struggles and
movements all over India. At the root of the debate lie questions related to
the definition of ‘public purpose’ and ‘infrastructure’ and the need for and
extent of involuntary displacement that is caused by the former.
The incongruities in the two bills are disconcerting as they do not attempt
to redress the question of involuntary displacement and work on the ‘Better
Off Principle’ for the dispossessed. What is even more threatening is that
the new Bill writes in ‘private corporate interest’ into ‘public interest’,
thereby facilitating and justifying acquisition of huge chunks of
agricultural land.
The critiques and analysis of these bills have been undertaken by several
people, ranging from eminent lawyers to social activists. The justification
of the State to make the process of land acquisition more inclusive comes
from the inclusion of adivasis and other hill-based communities as a step
towards recognition of their rights as entrenched in the V and VI Schedule
of the Indian Constitution; and provisions to set up a separate and
independent Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes Settlement Authority to
handle disputes on such processes that might take longer in the regular
courts of the country. However, as impressive as these may be, there are
other views that also need to be looked at.
Mamata Banerjee led Trinamool Congress has raised objections on the
provisions that allows for private investors acquiring up to 70% of land
from farmers and land owners, while the remaining 30% to be acquired through
Government acquisition. She has voiced her opinions in several interviews
and even in the Union Cabinet meeting to discuss the proposed bills. Some
reports also take into account the changed definition of an “infrastructure
project” which has been widened to include a vast swathe of industrial
activities – from water supply and irrigation projects to mining,
generation, transmission and supply of electricity; construction of roads,
highways, airports etc.
Various struggling groups have also raised serious concerns with these two
Bills, which also found prominent mention in the Parliamentary Standing
Committee of Rural Development Report on the subject. However, these
recommendations have been completely negated by the government, after all
what does govenremnt want to achieve from all this ? If it has no regard for
Committees comprising of elected representatives, exhaustive consultations
and vioices of millions of displaced and struggling communities, then who
does it care for – Corporations ?
The R&R Bill on the other hand is not based in the provisions of the ‘Better
Off Principle’ or ‘Land-for-Land’ entitlement that is most crucial, as also
recognized by the Supreme Court in the Narmada cases. Even provisions for
conducting a Social Impact Assessment or an Environmental Impact Assessment
are half-hearted measures that do not attempt to study the real effects of
people post-displacement, nor are those to be the criteria for decision on
the project itself.
*It is in this context that we invite you to discuss the relevance and
implications of these half hearted measures for the millions of people who
are struggling to retain their means of livelihood and seek meaningful
rehabilitation from a system in which they no longer seem to have faith.*
*___*
--
----
Purnima Ramanujan
InterCultural Resources
33D, Vijay Mandal Enclave
DDA SFS Flats,
New Delhi - 110016
Tel.: 011-26560133 / 65665677
Mobile: 97111 78868
