Orissa: Profiteers vs The People
By Elisabeth Abeson
06 June,
2008
Combat
Law
The Indian state of Orissa
observes its foundation day on April 1. Rather than partaking in traditional
statehood formation celebrations this year, many Orissians spent the
day rallying to resist the government-backed hand-over of their land
to a foreign multinational corporation (MNC). This protest took on
additional significance given the fact that state higher-ups and the
South Korean steel giant, POSCO1, had initially planned to lay the
foundation stone of one of its plants on the very same day. However,
due, in part, to public resistance they decided to cancel their plans
– allowing the protest to take centre-stage.
Under the leadership of Abhay Sahu, president of POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (PPSS), anti-POSCO protesters peacefully gathered on April 1st, 2008 at Balitutha, Orissa to ”protect our motherland from the onslaught of multinationals and uphold the movement’s pledge to control our homeland and its resources.”2 In addition to bearing the dubious credentials of being a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and one of Orissa’s many steel plants which is displacing its people, POSCO is also India’s largest foreign direct investment (FDI) to date. While vested interests tout FDI as being the means through which “under-developed” India will “modernise” and reach its “full potential”, the movement remains unimpressed. Prafulla Samantara, president of the Orissa unit of Lok Shakti Abhiyan, states, “foreign direct investment in the name of development through industrialisation is nothing but expansion of capitalist imperialism to exploit natural resources.”
The POSCO project, for example, will force 20,000 people to lose 6,000 acres of agricultural land which yields cash-crops including beetle leaves for their thriving paan industry, cashews and pisciculture. According to Samantara, these are, “critical sources of livelihood which are unique to this area and hence irreplaceable.” What makes this particular land-grab all the more sinister is that the affected area supports a self-sustaining and thriving local economy3. Removing villagers from their land would turn them into paupers – rendering them as destitute and powerless as those who accepted POSCO’s resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) package. In fact, on May 12, 2008, the 52 families of Patana village in Dhinkia panchayat who accepted the package threatened to commit self-immolation in front of the chief minister’s residence at Bhubaneswar unless their demands are met by the company and the administration. According to “The Statesman”, one of India’s oldest English-language newspapers, the people have long been suffering as a result of POSCO and the government’s inability to uphold their promises to those who accepted their rehabilitation package. Cited examples include poorly constructed makeshift homes which were destroyed by a thunderstorm, failure to uphold the company’s promise to educate the displaced families’ children, no drinking water source and short-changing families of their maintenance fees.
Indeed, the quality of life for those who accepted POSCO’s rehabilitation package pales in comparison to those who have clung to their land. An overnight stay in Dhinkia revealed that the village is blessed with a unique soil that yields aplenty for its people and livestock. Why then, one might ask, would the government of a country facing a food security crisis hand over the self-sustaining lands of its people to a foreign MNC? In addition to destroying the livelihood of those it displaced, such reckless action would also pose a threat to surrounding communities via environmental degradation, pollution and water diversion.
Amid such grim spectre, the April 1st protest, (refered to as “Bikalp
Samabesh”), drew a broad spectrum of people including those
led by Nav Nirman Samiti, Rashtriya Yuva Sangathan, local opposition
political party leaders, Sarovadya leaders, Satyagrahis, social activists
and environmentalists. Held at the historic site where the government
had bombed peaceful anti-POSCO protesters and torched their tents
on November 29, 2007, the villagers and their supporters defied Section
144,4 undeterred by the presence of thousands of armed policemen.
The march and rally were masterfully led by Abhay Sahu and other organisers
who planned the convergence of hundreds of villagers at Balitutha.
Protesters arrested earlier that morning for peacefully gathering
in defiance of Section 144, joined the action after being released
– signalling a victory of sorts.
For a brief but powerful time on April 1, 2008, India’s anti-people development policy was overturned by those it sought to victimise. By refusing to transfer control of their resources and livelihood to a foreign multinational, anti-POSCO Orissians held on steadfastly to what was rightfully theirs. In the face of state-sponsored repression, the people were victorious: POSCO withdrew its own foundation stone laying programme and the people held their rally. This renewed the vigour of those who have been resisting POSCO’s land-siege. As a result, several “pro-POSCO” families joined the struggle, bolstering the local opposition movement. Indeed, the events of April 1st prove that the people are forever resolved to retain their land. Yet the question that arises is, “Where do we go from here?” How can we build momentum and transform April 1st into the beginning of the end of a draconian era for the inhabitants of POSCO-affected Orissa? We need to correctly frame this struggle as one about resource retention rather than displacement. In this way, we can address the core issues, send corrective messages to the offenders and rally support accordingly. Nikunj Bhutia from Orissa Bachao Andolan stated, “this struggle is not about displacement versus industry, but democratic resource control. The POSCO project is not happening in isolation, it is part of a general move to seize resources from communities and use them for the benefit of big industry. The economic growth that results will not benefit anyone except for the private corporations involved. If people have control over their resources, they will shape economic policy so as to strengthen the base of the economy and the livelihood of the poor.” And, if the people don’t have control – well, then things would look like they currently do in Orissa.
Given the situation outlined above, it seems appropriate to remind the Government of India of its mandate to support the well-being of its people. According to Bhutia, This can only happen when people’s control over resources is institutionalised and, therefore, respected." Is it too much to expect a country’s government to deliver on its mission of respecting the interests of its citizens? Shouldn’t the government protect the lives and livelihood of its people rather than the investment portfolio of a foreign steel mill? If this is too much to ask, then Bharat (i.e. India) might as well be sold to the highest bidder.
There are other questions to ask, other messages to send to those who have been noticeably absent from the movement to date. Among them are the judiciary who have chosen to protect the interests of nameless, faceless MNCs rather than their own peoples. According to human rights lawyer, Colin Gonsalves, “the judges need to take a stand. The government has taken a stand and it has been on the side of the MNCs. It is time for the judiciary to support the people.” While it may sound like a natural inclination for the judiciary to support its people’s interests over those of a foreign steel giant, the events of the past three years suggest otherwise.
According to the movement, two issues, in particular, need be raised. The first is the court’s tendency to address the economic and environmental suitability of projects, rather than its legal aspects. As Shankar Gopalakrishnan, a prominent activist, states, “the judiciary should be focusing on upholding the rule of law and the fundamental rights of those living there which is its function in a liberal democracy. The court is ignoring its constitutional function, failing its duty to the people of the area and instead behaving like it has been appointed the arbiter of India's resources.”
Of equal concern is that the court appears to be considering the merits of the POSCO project on its own, without any representation by those who oppose it. According to Nikunj Bhutia, the POSCO project is an excellent example of what is wrong with the court's behaviour in the Godavarman case5, “No opposition in the Godavarman case means that the court is ignoring many applicable statutes – such as the Forest Rights Act, under which many of those who would be displaced are entitled to rights. If the intention of the court is to protect the environment, it can do that far better by allowing the normal machinery of government to function and fulfil its role when it is approached, rather than arrogating for itself regulatory powers that it has neither the capacity nor the mandate to exercise.” Prafulla Samantara, president, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Orissa unit, underscores the above, noting: “The draconian process of land acquisition by the government destroys the democratic fabric of our Constitution. It is not possible to accept a coercive development model or a project at the cost of freedom and democracy. This has been proven during the last three years of people's struggle against the POSCO project.”
While rejection of the “coercive development model” was proven over the last three years, no other single day signifies the peoples’ renouncement more aptly than April 1st , 2008. It will be recorded as a red letter day in Orissa -- a day on which people celebrated their right to land, livelihood and heritage. It will become known as the day on which the last ‘chapter’ in the POSCO era started – a day which marked a turning point in favour of those who tenaciously clung to what was theirs despite being betrayed by government, the judiciary and other corporate-influenced communities who placed profit over the well-being of the people. While it may take time to close this ‘chapter’ of Orissa’s history in the peoples' favour, the movement can take refuge in the following words of Prafulla Samantara: "It is a fact that the people's power will win over corporate hegemony in a democracy." The sooner we collectively acknowledge this, the earlier we can focus on returning nature’s gift to its rightful owners and sending this particular arbiter of capitalist imperialism back to South Korea. Perhaps then, reconciliation can begin within Bharat, ...and within those who once took an oath on behalf of its people.
– The writer is a Business & Human Rights specialist from the United States who visited POSCO affected villages of Orissa as part of an ongoing project to document the negative ramifications of corporate-led globalisation in India.
Endnotes
1 POSCO: Pohang Iron and Steel Company, Ltd.
2 Quotation by Abhay Sahu, President of POSCO Pratirodh Sangram Samiti
(PPSS)
3 This information has been paraphrased from “Report of an Independent
Fact Finding Team on Orissa’s POSCO Project”. Bijulal
MV, Manshi Asher, Sridev Panikkar and Sumit Chakravartty, p.4
4 Section 144: Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
empowers a district government to issue orders in public interest
that may place a ban on an activity for a specific period of time.
In the POSCO context, Section 144 was clamped at Balitutha as a means
to prevent crowds from assembling in protest on April 1, 2008.
5 “Godavarman v the Union of India” is known as the ‘forest
case’ which has been heard in the Supreme Court since 1995.
Given the fact that the case will dictate the fate of India’s
forests and an estimated 10 million indigenous tribal people who live
in and off the forest, its outcome is of direct importance to the
anti-POSCO struggle.
