Dayamani Barla, an adivasi activist and leader from Jharkhand states, "The ChhotaNagpur Tenancy Act states that agricultural land cannot be sold or transferred to a non-Adivasi and certainly not for commercial purposes in adivasi belts".
Who will benefit from the Land Acquisition Act and the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act: the people or corporate India? Asks Manshi Asher
The mainstream media cannot stop talking about how Mamata Bannerjee has thrown the spanner in the works for the two most crucial proposed legislations - the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) Amendment Bill and the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) Bill 2007 which is causing undue delay in bringing about a "greater balance" between needs of the land owners versus requirements of industry. Notwithstanding that this realization has dawned a century too late, the belief that passing of these two bills in their current form will lead to a resolution of land "disputes", is seriously misplaced. Firstly, the articulation of this problem of displacement, which has now assumed crisis proportion in the country, as merely a dispute between two parties with conflict of interest is flawed. What we are seeing here is systematic, not to mention forced, transfer of land and other resources from farmers, agricultural labourers, fishworkers, tenants to profit making entities with the government acting as an intermediary. Secondly, Mamata didi is not the only one who is aghast at the solution being offered to this crisis.
 |
 |
| Photos: SHAILENDRA PANDEY |
On 23rd and 24th July 2009, more than a thousand representatives of displaced people and those facing threat of displacement gathered at Jantar Mantar in the capital to oppose the two Bills as they stand. People losing their resources to dams, mines, SEZs, highways and infrastructure projects from Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Maharshtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal, sent out a clear message 'No more displacement'. This got little media attention. Not unusual because for the last few decades 'development' displaced people have been trying to make their voice be heard and little heed has been paid to their demand for repeal of the LAA and introduction of a comprehensive legislation that makes place for just development where the displaced are not merely treated as collateral damage.
"There has to be recognition that there has been historical injustice where millions of people have been displaced without any recognition of their rights and the government must bring out a white paper on the on Land Acquisition, Displacement and Rehabilitation for the last 60 years" said Ashok Chowdhary, leader of the National Forum for Forest People and Workers in his address at the protest meet.
It was in the backdrop of several local and national movements over two decades that a process of consultation began with the National Advisory Council (NAC) of the UPA's last tenure in 2005. The outcome was a comprehensive development policy document that looked at the key issues of displacement and rehabilitation and was to evolve into legislation. The critical elements of the NAC draft included a provision of prior informed consent of the 'gram sabha' in the land acquisition process; challenging eminent domain and limiting the definition of 'public purpose'; land for land lost; and making rehabilitation available notwithstanding the number of displaced persons. The government however did a u-turn by introducing the National Rehabilitation Policy 2006 drafted by the Ministry of Rural Development which discarded the key principles that existed in the NAC draft. It is this policy that then took form of the R&R Bill 2007 with its twin bill that sought amendment in the LAA of 1894.
Apart from completely negating the consultative process that had taken place earlier these bills contained clauses that were entirely contrary to the objective of protecting the interests of the affected people. The amendment to the LAA 1894 seeks to expand the definition of 'public purpose' to enable acquisition for private parties for a variety of activities ranging from infrastructure projects to airports, mines or "any other purpose useful". "This is simply unacceptable because it strengthens eminent domain of the state that too for purely private interests and thus undermines the constitutional rights of the people" adds Medha Patkar, leader of Narmada Bachao Andolan and National Alliance of People's Movements.
Further, most objectionable clauses of the original LAA 1894 have been retained. For instance, the "urgency clause", under section 17, which allows land to be acquired without a hearing on objections, is still there. "What use is this amendment for us if they cannot do away with draconian provisions?" says Guman Singh of the Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Himachal Pradesh siting the example of the Renuka Dam project where the section is being used to coerce the affected people into selling their lands. He also challenges the eligibility criteria for rehabilitation, which has been fixed as 200 families enmasse being displaced for hill areas. "In mountain areas habitations are scattered and in case of hydropower projects the direct displacement is smaller but the impact area can be the population of the entire river valley which will never be considered as "affected" under these laws " adds Guman.
The most debatable clause of the LAA amendment requires that private entities directly purchase 70% of the land from the owners, after which the government will 'acquire' the rest under the provisions of the two acts. This has been made to sound fair but will create a new set of complications as the provisions, like social impact assessment (SIA) study and eligibility for R%R, would only apply to 30% of the affected population whose land has been acquired by the state. This obviously means that the SIA is not really mandatory for the entire project and public opinion will not be a deciding factor in whether the project is socially feasible or acceptable. The 70:30 provision legitimises land grab and seriously undermines existing legislations like those on Land Ceiling or PESA that protect community rights over land. Dayamani Barla, an adivasi activist and leader from Jharkhand states, "The ChhotaNagpur Tenancy Act states that agricultural land cannot be sold or transferred to a non-Adivasi and certainly not for commercial purposes in adivasi belts".
But the critique of the present bills is not just about the definition of public purpose or the 70:30 clause on land acquisition. "When has 'land acquisition' ever been a people's agenda? The establishment of community control over resources and their legal legitimacy is what the people want. This is a pre-condition for any land", asserts activist-researcher C.R.Bijoy.
"A detailed land use plan down to the level of the panchayat should be prepared for each State and passed by the Assembly. Any acquisition of land or large-scale land use change should be in compliance with the State level land use plan" states a submission made by the Campaign for Survival and Dignity, to the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Rural Development who reviewed the two bills last year with representations from various ministries, state government and people's groups.
The PSC presented its reports on both the bills to the Lok Sabha in October 2008 but there was little debate on them and recommendations from the report were not incorporated in the bills that the Lok Sabha passed in its March 2009 session. The bills could not clear the vote at the Rajya Sabha then. Now the UPA, under pressure to deal with land acquisition problems being faced by projects, is attempting to bring in the bills once again in their current form.
People's movements have rejected the bills in their present form and are demanding that the NAC draft be brought back or the bills be referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee and concerns be adequately incorporated. Yes, there will be further delay. But till the root of this ailment disease is treated the right to reject band-aid remedies must be reserved with those who suffer.
