The proposed land acquisition laws don't
leave the displaced any better off as they provide no share in
development to those who are forced to sell.
As the nation celebrates the anniversary of its freedom from erstwhile
princes and the British, the land acquisition and rehabilitation laws
in the making throw up questions about the leanings of democratic
governments and their priorities.
The draft Bills on the subject provide for compensation only to those
whose land is bought by the government, not to those whose land is
bought by industry. Yet the government will acquire 30 per cent of the
total land needed by industry. This means the government will help the
buyers but not the sellers.
And how the government helps is for all to see. Recently, the courts
allowed two companies to undertake mining in Orissa.
In one case, Sterlite has been asked by the Supreme Court to compensate
the people in Niyamgiri in Orissa’s Kalahandi district with annual
payments of Rs 10 crore. Will the money ensure that the rivers don’t
dry up, which is almost certain as taking away bauxite will reduce the
hill’s absorbing qualities?
In the second case, where also a company (Posco in this case) and the
government of Orissa are pitted against the villagers who will be
displaced, the court has given the go-ahead for mining. Three gram
panchayats have to part with their land. In two, Nuagaon and
Gadakujang, the police and the supporters of the company have silenced
all resistance, which is now limited to the Dhinkia panchayat. The
company says off the record that it will leave Dhinkia and take the
rest.
It sounds like a war operation. In fact, it took a twist this week as
an American teacher, David Pugh, and his Indian translator were
arrested for suspected Maoist links from Jagatsinghpur, where the
anti-Posco movement is active.
A third company, ArcelorMittal, has begun talking to the villagers.
This is perfectly fair. Gram sabhas are called and the villagers decide
if they want to sell or not. The gram sabha in Bhrungarajposi in
Keonjhar district agreed to sell land. But what business does the
government have in the gram sabha? In Bhrungarajposi, according to the
company, the district collector was present at the gram sabha meeting
while the police encircled the village. This reflects not on the
company but the government, which is betraying the trust of the
villagers, who are at its mercy.
In June 1919, under the British rule, the farmers of Mulshi near Pune
were served notices that their land would be acquired for the Tatas’
plan to build six dams. A satyagraha, led by Senapati Bapat, was
suppressed and the Tatas bought the land for Rs 500 per acre. The
descendants of the displaced are still awaiting the relief amount,
according to a government-funded project on displacement by Infochange.
If five farmers laid down their lives this week on the border of Delhi
in Greater Noida over land sold to the government three years ago, it
is because land deals are leaving people short-changed. While the
shares of the companies climb on the bourses, the small amounts given
to the poor diminish. And nearly a century later, the government is
still planning to buy land for industry while providing no share in
development to those who are forced to sell. Is this a law for the
companies or the displaced?
http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=331594
Copyright @ Business Standard.
