Written in May-2010
There has been a flurry of amendments and Acts that have been bought by the UPA government since it came to power. Some of the landmark ones like the NREGA are proving pivotal in changing the dynamics of rural India. In all the gaga over reforms, a very pertinent amendment to the Land Act 1894 has been continuously pushed under the carpet all this while. Surprisingly, the draconian Act is barely under much discourse in the political circles or the media. When it is, it only highlights from capitalist perspective of ‘dragging land acquisitions slowing industrial growth’.
 |
| Farmers on a hunger strike at Tappal-Aligarh (Yamuna Expressway) |
An amendment to this Law can well change, the present marauding form of development taking place across the country. This colonial legacy gives the state to annex any piece of land in the garb of ‘development’. This piece of land can also be transferred or gifted by the state to any private company, if it can somehow be regarded for ‘public purpose’.
An amendment to the bill has been repeatedly shelved in the past two years after facing opposition many sides even within the Govt. ranks. Last year even after the cabinet approval, the Bill could not be passed in the Parliament.
However, now the government owing to mounting pressure of delay in ‘development projects’, has finally worked on a possible final draft of an amendment to this Law and on the related ‘Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill’ and it might well table it in the next session of the Parliament .Unfortunately, the proposed amendments give some overriding powers to the State. These powers to a large extent circumvent the intervention of courts in cases pertaining to land acquisition, claim and displacement; instead a proposed body which can be chaired by bureaucrats will weigh the merits of all disputes related to the land acquisition. One such proposed body will be formed under the National Development and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Commission, having sweeping powers to “dispose of all petitions of resettlement and rehabilitation”.
Although, now the state would not be able acquire 100 percent land for a private company, it remains unclear if it would still be able gift land. Further, the state can still acquire 30% of the land for the company (under the 70:30 clause) if the State finds it ‘useful to the general public’ (changed from ‘public purpose’). Using this utterly vague term to gauge the merits of an industry conveniently opens it up for the choicest of interpretations.
While, there will be a provision of a socio-economic impact assessment(which can veto a project), but with a loop hole of being applicable only in case of a negative assessment, encompassing at least 400 families in plain areas and at least 200 in tribal/hilly areas. Also, people displaced by the private company (on the other 70% of the land) will not be under the purview of any ‘resettlement & rehabilitation’, this would be left to the discretion of the private body.
Another addition is the clause Section 17(1) of the legislation under which, in case of ‘urgency’, land can be acquired by the government within 15 days of the publication of a notice. The term emergency is undefined here; this clause also, gets-around the need for any socio-economic impact assessment.
Besides, the new legislation remains mum on a capped agricultural land acquisition for the industry. We are facing a deepening crisis of stagnant food production levels, so a safeguard for the fertile land resource is a must.
Altogether, the new legislations have a prism view of looking at all aspects of land acquisition and leave allot of room for being abused. Thus, it is more likely that the state guided by its neo-liberal -hunger for growth-policy, even with proposed amendments is marching to the tunes of the capitalist lobby.
Here, it is interesting to note that the Govt., has been repeatedly harping on a two-pronged strategy (of development and combat) to deal with the Naxallite menace. Nevertheless, what remains unanswered and un-questioned by the media, is how the State can manage to deal with development of Naxallite affected areas with such archaic land- laws in place. As is known the Naxallite movement mainly finds its roots among the Tribals and the peasants, both of who have been repeatedly been denied land rights.
Such proposed Laws will obviously alienate ever more people especially since they largely fail to accommodate human side of any displacement; the rising Naxalism threat should only be used as an opportunity by the government to be bipartisan in upholding rights of the people and safeguarding national resources.
Present Mess
Even the much publicized Forest Dwellers Act 2008, has been largely rendered ineffective owing to resistance and ineffectiveness of the district administrations. Sometimes, even to the extent of being misused against the Tribal’s .For example in the POSCO project many hundred acres of land that was brazenly snatched away by calling it govt. forest land , had actually been under cultivation of the Tribals some of who have inhabited the place since the past century. Under Section 4 ( C ) of the Tribal Act it is clearly mentioned that any forest dweller, Tribal can have Land right over piece of forest land if he has been a inhabitant of the place for more than 3 decades . In another case of Gujrat, a Tribal rights activist who was spearheading an awareness campaign of the Forest Dwellers Act was arrested by Police on alleged charges of being a Naxxalite sympathizer .
There are countless cases of land grabbing (by the state or in conjunction with state) through the present Land Act. Two prominent pending cases -which have been delayed owing to stiff resistance from the people- are that of the upcoming Ganga Expressway project coming up in UP and the Nirma Cement Plant in Saurashtra (coastline Gujarat). The Ganga Expressway project runs through several thousand hectares of fertile land (these flood plains receives alluvial soil from the Ganges), which according to some estimates constitutes 70% of the total land that would be acquired for it. While, the Nirma Cement plant is being set up on a public land demarcated for a rainwater check-dam, which would affect fresh water supply of thousands villagers in the region. What makes these cases disturbing is the unbending support by the State at the cost of its own people; the government of Gujarat is versus its own people in the courts to make sure that land is allotted to Nirma.
Moreover, irrevocable damage has already taken in many cases including two publicized cases of the POSCO, where even after five years of struggle a final pitiable compensation (of two lakh rupees per acre, for a project which is costing two lakh crore rupees) is offered to the Tribals on whose land the project is coming up .On the other hand the Govt. has squarely failed, to rehabilitate most of the displaced villagers of the Narmada dam even after two years.
WAY OUT
In order to clear the mess arising in such cases, a very essential step is to define the much exploited myth of ‘development’. Whose problems will be addressed by a particular industrial project and to what extent? Should priority be given to the locals or the larger social good of the country?
What constitutes development for a group of people? Isn’t it something very arbitrary, especially when you ask a Tribal or an urbanite? Who decides what kind of development will be beneficial to the locals, and most importantly do they need it at all? The lopsided notion that is made-out by proponents of industrialization that any so called industry ‘can bring prosperity to the region’ is most repugnant and should be brushed aside all together. Instead of blindly imposing industries on the weak, or simply colluding with the industrialists (all in the name prosperity), the government should engage in a very closely monitored unbiased social-economic assessment of each and every industrial project.
Only in a few cases the people (land-givers) have been made partners in the so called development of the area; which at the least can include, allotting shares of the company, assured jobs, health and education.
Nevertheless, even providing sufficient paying jobs is difficult because many of the industry related job require skilled labor. Yet, it should be made clear, that just paying the appropriate market price for the land is not sufficed; as they also snatch a livelihood with the land.
Ironically, one of the compensation model that was probably more equitable, of the now controversial and delayed Jindal Steel plant Midnapur District of West Bengal. Where they had offered free shares, equal to the cost of land being sold, besides payment of full value of land and employment to one member of each family after providing free training, health care facilities .
So the compensation has to be more than just right ‘market price’ for the resources,; especially if we equate the reoccurring obscene profits a company stands to make from a particular project, with the paltry compensations. At the least, the company should to make sure that the displaced families have sustainable running source of income as well.
There are clear provisions even in the present Law, to approach the Court in case of unsatisfactory compensation. Nonetheless, getting the right ‘market price’ for the land remains a big tussle for the farmer’s; this especially holds true in the case of many Govt. related projects. The Farmers, usually mange to bargain only when they have strength of numbers and stand united. It is said capitalism gives the right to market forces to determine the price.
Hence, instead of just giving pugnacious remarks after every attack (in Naxallite affected areas), the government must also be more vocal; to specifically point out what developmental efforts the government plans to undertake. Both media and political debates are vociferously debating about the use of aircrafts, why haven’t they, till date rake on which instruments of development be most suited to these regions. The best tools in dousing Naxallism instead of fighter planes or superior armory, which can be brought about with effective implementation of the Tribal Act (which is being vehemently denied), along with a nonpartisan amendment to the Land Act.
However it is heartening to mention that the Supreme Court in a recent landmark ruling on a litigation from Karnataka, has at least acknowledged the wide spread discrimination under Land Act, in acquisitions across the country. These lines of the ruling succinctly convey allot, “Where the beneficiaries of acquisition were private individuals, there was a general feeling among the land losers that their land was taken away to benefit other classes of people. This would amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul; that their land is given to others for exploitation or enjoyment, while they are denied their land and their source of livelihood. When this grievance and resentment remains unaddressed, it leads to unrest and agitations. The solution is to make the land losers also the beneficiaries of acquisition so that the land losers would not feel alienated but would welcome acquisition.”
