Home


Crowdfunding Countercurrents

Submission Policy

Popularise CC

Join News Letter

Defend Indian Constitution

CounterSolutions

CounterImages

CounterVideos

CC Youtube Channel

Editor's Picks

Press Releases

Action Alert

Feed Burner

Read CC In Your
Own Language

Bradley Manning

India Burning

Mumbai Terror

Financial Crisis

Iraq

AfPak War

Peak Oil

Globalisation

Localism

Alternative Energy

Climate Change

US Imperialism

US Elections

Palestine

Latin America

Communalism

Gender/Feminism

Dalit

Humanrights

Economy

India-pakistan

Kashmir

Environment

Book Review

Gujarat Pogrom

Kandhamal Violence

Arts/Culture

India Elections

Archives

Links

About Us

Disclaimer

Fair Use Notice

Contact Us

Subscribe To Our
News Letter

Name:
E-mail:

Search Our Archive



Our Site

Web

 

Order the book

A Publication
on The Status of
Adivasi Populations
of India

 

 

 

Terra Firma: Re-Examining Land Rights Eithin The Mosaic Of Development, Democracy And Justice

By Shalu Nigam

07 April, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Past few months have witnessed an intense debate and emotional turmoil over the Land Acquisition law not only in the Parliament but also on streets and corners spanning India. The struggle over land rights is not new; rather it has been long and continuous. However, in contemporary situation, the state is abetting pro-capitalist neoliberal agenda while amending the existing land laws and policies. Under the new scheme, the plan is to allow acquisition of the land while overriding several social clauses and award the same to industries and businesses on highly lucrative terms. This is a cause for contestation, resentment and struggle. For years, farmers, peasants, fisherman, local artisans and all those actors in communities who depend on the land for their livelihood and survival are facing serious issues in the realm of compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation and most importantly, in the arena of ownership and their continued existence. Therefore, this neo liberal development model is leading to destruction and devastation of the poor and the marginalized by taking away their `everything' – from the community style living and culture to their entitlement to land and their livelihood, alienating them and making them vulnerable and the `other' in their own soil. Hence, they are protesting in different ways at various places. The current situation therefore is such that the government is pushing for reform in land laws on one hand and on the other the subalterns are strongly resisting this restructuring of laws and policies to evict them from their home. It is leading to an intense ideological conflict and a new form of democracy is emerging out of this churning, giving rise to a new form of politics where marginalized are countering the state apparatus to negotiate their claims and entitlements.  This piece of writing will examine the situation of hegemonic economist regime through the critical framework relating to rights, justice, redistribution, equality and ethics which is resurrecting the new politics of citizenship thus altering the discourse on democracy and people's participation in governance.

Why Land Acquisition is Critical Issue?

Land is basic to human life. It is also a symbol to affluence and status. Besides its economic or monetary value, land is a source of social and political power. Land is a critical resource to earn livelihood, yet, it is a core asset to extract minerals and wealth. Land provides food and it is also a factor of production; it is used for farming and it is a basis for constructing roads or rail network. It is a source of survival for poor and it is also essential for development. In addition, it is a foundation for reproduction of capit t mode of production and social relations. Land has emotional value to it as well as it has material attachment and reality. It has both tangible and intangible value for its users. Land may be used as a social good or an economic good depending on who is using it with what purpose and who will be benefitting by such utilization. Land is a multidimensional concept and a fundamental resource specifically in the agrarian economy like India where for the subalterns and the rural poor it play a vital role in securing their livelihoods, defending and maintaining their cultural identity and assist them in asserting their civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights. For businesses, land is a basic resource required to earn profits. The state needs land for building necessary infrastructure essential for the growth of the nation. Though the land fulfills multiple needs, it is limited and non-expandable and therefore its judicious utilization is crucial. 

During the colonial rule in India, the imperial rulers contrived the existing land arrangements for their political and economic gains delegitimizing the original owners of their rights while polarizing the community into those who own land and those who work as peasants. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 gave absolute power to the government to acquire land belonging to the people where landowners had no choice but to surrender their rights thus leading to agitation and hostility among people. Since then, land has become a serious, agonizing, tormenting and a contentious issue. Initially, land was acquired for `public purpose', however with the amendments made in 1984 the land was acquired for private use by companies and investors. In the post colonial nation, the question of land has been raised again and again while linking it with the discourse on `development' leading to severe incongruity between state and people while disturbing the spatial relations and producing unevenness. Further with the advent of globalization during 90s, the framework of neoliberalism subjected agrarian reform to the mechanics of market putting land ownership in the hands of a few powerful elite.  The enactment of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 leads to increase in scale and size of acquisition enormously while displacing millions.

According to the neoliberal agenda, land no longer belongs to those who cultivate it or work on it, rather the proponents of this economic model proposed that it may be subjected to market forces where the one who has the capital and/or the financial capacity can buy it in whatever quantity like any other marketable commodity, own it and use it as a commercial good according to one's own requirement. This concept of treating land as a free commodity helps businesses and transnational corporations; however, it ignores the principle of social or community ownership where the land is used for the benefits of families, communities and societies and is a part of common property resources.  The market based framework excludes landowners, landless peasants, marginal farmers, fish-workers, potters and all other occupational who have been associated with the land directly or indirectly. In the agrarian economy, land is considered as a `Mother Earth' and has emotional and social value; however this is being commercialized, commodified in the free trade new market system where land hold only economic value. It is seen as a factor of production or a prerequisite for capitalization and globalization like labor or capital.

As per this fiscal model, the market dictates the distribution and utilization of land which is often done while violating the rights of poor peasants and other community actors who are dependent on it for their life and livelihood.  According to a government committee on land reforms more than 2.1 million hectares of agricultural land has been transferred to non-agricultural purposes during the period from 1990 to 2003. This market paradigm deprives people of their means of livelihood without taking into account the local realities, the historic struggles, customs, land use or the needs and requirements of the local people. It has been estimated that more than 60 million people have been displaced and affected by public and private projects between the year 1947 and 2000. The economic framework thus deepens inequality and intensifies poverty, marginalizing those who already are on the periphery. This form of deviation from the agrarian reform could neither lead to substantial improvement in the living standards of poor nor could it eventually lead to actual or just development.

The conceptual inconsistency dictated by the free market regime lies in the fact that the land is often acquired by the state from local citizens who have been working, surviving and living on it for generations and given to person/s or companies existing far away with the aim of earning profit out of it by exploiting the available resources at low cost which they may not find in their own country. Or the acquired land is given to some giant corporation because it would exploit the rich minerals or may put up a production unit that produces goods at low cost which are to be sold to somebody in a foreign land at high price to earn profit. This leads to unjust development based on the pivot of unevenness and unfairness giving rise to intense contestations. A mapping exercise undertaken by the Resources and Rights Initiative, Washington and the Society for Promotion for Wasteland, Delhi reveals that more than 250 land dispute cases have been reported in the year 2013-14 in the 165 of 664 districts in India [1] . The report pointed out that most of these conflicts arise when the government took over land on behalf of the private investors.

Recently, when the current government pushed for this neo-economic development model and brought amendments in the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 through an ordinance, it lead to ideologically inconsistent confrontations between the government, business and corporations on one hand and marginalized people on the other. The rising debate leads to hostility, conflict and resentment. Land, thus once again became a prolific terrain for antagonism rather than a moribund discourse, resurrecting a new politics of citizenship and reshaping governance. Along with the land issue what is being questioned and contested is the whole politics and paradigm of the development because development in itself is fluid concept. It is not a regulative discourse but a prolific, controversial and a volatile location on which both compliant and unruly subjects struggle to assert their rights.

The Politics and Rhetoric of Development

Official discourse of development supported by the resourceful international organizations and rich corporations argues that the economic development is essential even if it entails a certain `cost' and that the fruits of such development will trickle down to benefit the poorest of the poor. Based on the ideology and rationality of `Davos man', this argument favours economic restructuring based on structural adjustment program and in the process creates a new form of exclusion, discrimination, dispossession and marginalization. This form of economic development is founded on the ideology of domination and is based on the narrow concept of `There is No Alternative' as opposed to the hope enshrined in the approach `Another World is Possible' given by opponent of this framework. This model of development reifies hierarchies and reiterates the control based on suppression or oppression. It is a new avatar of colonization in the post colonial state where those who possess power use it to control and dominate those who are on the margins.

The logic of neoliberalism fails to recognize the fact that this form of development does not yield similar results for everyone. It is a layered process and produces results which are asymmetrical, suppressing some while enriching others. The neoliberal free trade policies are making profound impact in lives of common people. These are threatening the life and livelihood of poor while ruthlessly exploiting the small and marginal farmers and the landless. The regressive actions of land grabbing, forceful eviction, usurping of forests rights and land alienation by the state to forestall the power of market economy is making survival of subalterns tenuous because it intensifies inequalities and reifies poverty making poor more poorer. Dictated by the corporate groups with the sole aim of earn profits, the earlier vision of caring and sharing has been replaced with the logic of loot and scoot. This is evident by the fact that the share of agriculture and allied sectors in the GDP of the country has declined from 23.2% in 1999-2000 to about 13.9% in 2013-14. At the same time share of non-agriculture sectors have grown to more than 85%. Thus the agricultural land is being acquired and more and more people are compelled to join service sector. However, though the service sector's share in the GDP is 59.9%, it provides employment to only 26.9% of the working population [2] .

The Census 2011 data reveal that the share of cultivators in total working population has gone down from 31.7% in 2001 to 24.9% in 2011 but the share of total workers engaged in agriculture has reduced only by 3.3 percent (from 58.2% in 2001 to 54.9% in 2001). The analysis pointed out that the majority of cultivators are now being compelled to work as agriculture workers or labourers in a city because there is no land left. In order to survive they have to work as agricultural workers on the land of those who have not yet sold it or are compelled to search employment under the schemes like MNREGA. There is no place for them in the non agricultural sector. Those who have been dispossessed are forced to seek an alternative avenue for survival through self employment or wage work in the economy which is characterized by the jobless growth. Most of these cultivators who are poor, illiterate, semi-literate or less educated workers could not get anything except low paid jobs in unorganised and informal sectors, where they work without any facilities, safety and job or social security. Often, these people are forced to migrate and live in shanty towns or urban slums, in small rooms without basic amenities [3] .  

The privatization of state and diminishing welfare provisions as pushed by the globalization has further aggravated the adversities while taking away people's control over natural resources and their access to fundamental utilities thus making them vulnerable while exposing them to harshness and competition of the market forces controlled and dominated by the rich corporations. The neoliberal regime is adversely affecting the redistributive programmes and popular social agenda initiated by the earlier governments while reducing the spending on basic welfare provisions and declining the commitments made to `aam aadmi' or common man. These state policies are contributing indirectly to the land grab by undermining the rights of marginalized by withdrawing essential support besides using might and military power to crush any resistance put up by tribals, peasants or other social groups thus oppressing people's voice.

Using Law as a Tool to Oppress

The state as a cultural relic is utilizing the arsenal of transnational governance such as structural adjustment programs and environmental accords, the authority vested in it through the armory of constitutional provisions, laws and legislations besides military maneuvers to push for neo liberal agenda. The law has been used as a weapon against those who are poor and on the margins. The Land Acquisition Act, the Mining Act, the Special Economic Zone Act, the National Highway Authority Act, the state laws, all are used to acquire land, water, forests and other natural resources and legitimize the forceful acquisition under the guise of `development' thereby infringing rights of millions of families, destroying communities and destructing societies.  The neoliberal discourse while ignoring the grassroots praxis is transforming political vision through its inimical `development' policies and laws.

The legal principle of `eminent domain' which implies inherent right of the state to take private property for public use has been used extensively to acquire land from holders who are unwilling to sell it. This brings in the larger question relating to state's sovereignty vis-à-vis ongoing people's struggle relating to dignity and security. The concept of `public use' has been narrowly construed while using this principle. Who is the `public' for whom the acquired land will be used and how such land grab will be useful to `public'? Should this term `public' include majority of subalterns who are surviving on margins or should it include a handful of elite rich business groups who wish to grab land to further their interests? Why only the poor need to pay in terms of their lives and livelihoods, a cost of development, in case the term public is interpreted in the general sense as masses or majority? All these questions remain ambiguously unanswered.

 On account of enforcement of a repressive regime, a large number of people are forcefully evicted without proper rehabilitation plan or information necessary to provide `informed consent' in addition to adequate compensation. No measures are being deployed to restore lost livelihoods or assets, no relocation facilities are provided and serious neglect by the state add to the vulnerabilities of the displaced subaltern population which has been rooted out in the name of development. The state has thus moved to create economic conclaves while segregating the society and excluding majority from the development.

The projects being initiated for `development' ended in creating causalities spanning over social, economic and cultural domains, endangering millions of lives as project affected families. Those displaced face uncertainties throughout their lives. Impoverishment, landlessness, joblessness, homelessness become common among those who are ousted from their own soil. Food insecurity, malnutrition, morbidity and mortality destroy many of these lives. Those left, survive as asset-less, deprived of their identity and denied of any support. Fragmentation of communities, breakdown of social support system and increased susceptibility to exploitation and increased vulnerabilities, all are neglected while dispossessing people of their land. 

Monetary compensation, market value of land, economic parity – nothing recompenses the loss, the deprivation, the trauma and the dispossession because the intangible losses could never be accounted for by money. Although The Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy or the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 prescribe the procedures for rehabilitation, these policies do not expand to restoration of livelihoods, replacement of lost assets or land for land approach. Nor do they describe principle for sharing benefits of projects of development or sharing revenue as being done in certain countries.

Market based land reforms evade redistribution of land to create equality or filter the fruits of development and also cause tribulations leading to poverty and income inequalities by creating millions of landless families. The market economy cares for profits; it does not care for the needs of the people; rather it breeds corruption. For example, the CAG Report [4] reveals that the state government had gone all the way out to gratify industries like POSCO and Vedanta by forcibly acquiring land. The law was misinterpreted and misread to benefit the corporations while grabbing the agricultural land reducing the area of cultivation by 117000 hectares between the period on from 2005 – 10. The state evidently becomes inimical to the concerns of its citizens while the deals benefit the buyers and exploiting the poor land owners. Market prices were fixed erroneously and compensation was not paid besides other irregularities noted in the deals. In Gujarat, the state government wrongly classified mangrove forest as degraded forest to benefit Adani Group in Mundra Project [5] . Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh [6] , Kerala [7] , Karnataka [8] and other states, the land has been usurped by the respective state governments and allotted to private industries. The corporate-state nexus proved to be hostile to the rights of masses as legitimate citizens and holders of claims at par with others. However, this is being countered and defied by local people through protests, dissents and other means.

Resurrection of the New Politics of Citizenship

In contrast to state's perception of development, the popular imagination relating to land issue, democracy and justice is based on the concept of survival, livelihood, rights, ethics and above all recognition as political legitimate citizens. It demands for collective rights by evoking constitutional guarantees. With the expansion and intensification of the brutalities by the governments and the corporations, the resistance by subalterns also intensified to challenge deprivation, destitution, displacement and dispossession. Dissents are being made and protests are being carried out all over the country starting from Narmada, Koel Karo, Singur, Nandigram, Kashipur, Raigarh, Kalinga Nagar, Sonbhadra, Chindwara among other places besides Jantar Mantar.  These protests and everyday resistance are being made by those on margins against their invisibilization under the neoliberal globalization. Their claim is for the just and equitable development against the arbitrary policies and laws of the state that cannot be ignored or negated in the large vibrant democratic society.

Resistance to land grabs involves multi class communities and is different from worker's struggle or trade union activities. It includes, peasants, landless labourers, marginal farmers, adivasis and those occupational groups whose livelihood and survival depends on access to land. Failure of the neoliberal economy to provide for alternate employment or livelihood options to those dispossessed added to the woes of many and compelled them to join the struggle. The main agenda of this heterogeneous group is to defeat the neoliberal market forces and to develop a people friendly alternative democratic framework where the ownership of land remains with those who work on it. The goal is to prevent the land distribution being subjected to powers of market forces. This emerging popular struggle is compelling the existing democratic structure to function as per the norms of justice, rights, ethics, accountability as well as fair and transparent governance.

What is articulated through the dissent is a vision that an ideal democratic development model cannot be defined or articulated by the constricted neoliberal logic of citizenship. This form of emerging active participatory citizenship working against the repressive and exclusionary regime of state apparatus is inclusive, egalitarian and liberating. This politics of citizenship is centered on demanding resources and negotiating claims for the rights and justice from the state thus sculpting and reshaping the distributive system through the subalterns struggle. It is countering the skewed power relationship by creating a new praxis of citizenship and rewriting the notes on democracy and justice with the ink of rights rather than allowing the neoliberal totalitarian regime to dictate the capitalistic norms from the above. The dissent questions the market agenda, struggle for justice in land reform and for progressive land distribution with minimum displacement and maximum benefits to common people.

Emergence of New Discourse in Democracy

A significant issue that is emerging out of this resistance is that the protest by the political society is compelling the state representatives to renew their commitment to equitable national development. Such dissent is forcing the government to re-affirm the rhetorical promises about progress that benefits all – Sab ka vikas and not advantages of a few. Disenfranchised subjects are determining their claims in their unequal and different status by using moral and ethical notions of personhood and community to negotiate for their entitlements. They are exhibiting solidarity to appeal to the powerful state to act in a just and ethical manner thus re-articulating the meaning of citizenship. By evoking the politics of citizenship, the subalterns are conjuring are engaging with the state, critiquing it and demanding righteousness. This is above the limited construction of democratic governance which construes the limited role of the marginalized in the governance. By fighting for their rightful claims relating to survival, the marginalized are implicating state which serves as critical markers for emergence of a new form of citizenship in a democracy.

Here, a new form of democracy is being evolved where subalterns through their repeated and alert response are reflecting on the original mandates of constitution in their day to day action to discursively materialize what state ought to do while critiquing the failure of welfare state.  Subalterns are challenging the abuse of power by the state to maintain its social, economic and political dominance. The struggle reflects on the manner in which official policies and practice, state and civil society institutions and citizenship is being transformed to meet the goal of social emancipation and promises of substantive, not nominal democracy to realize the equality rights.  The marginals are compelling the state to play an active role in determining the `Niti' (the policy) as well as exhibit the `niyat' (the will) to ensure social justice to all besides focusing on the goals of development. The demand of this subalterns' struggle is accountability of the state towards common masses. It is also questioning the legitimacy and accountability of market based institutions and international organizations compelling them to focus on pro-poor policies and alternative approaches. New terrains for resistance are being utilized by the subalterns who are courageously protesting regressive and oppressive policies while keeping democracy alive and imparting a new meaning to it to bring about sustainable, equitable and just development. The subaltern politics, dissent and protests is thus creating an unconventional imaginative vision of governance, justice, development, belongingness and a just society by rewriting and reshaping governance.

The author is an academic researcher and an activist working on gender, governance and law issues for several years. She has written books, articles and papers and may be contacted at [email protected]

Notes

[1] Sethi Nitin (2014) 250 conflicts over land acquisition recorded in 2013 and 2014, The Business Standard, dated December 31, http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/250-conflicts-over-land-acquisition-recorded-in-2013-and-2014-114123100051_1.html

[2] Government of India (2013) Economic Survey, Chapter 1, The State of Indian Economy http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2013-14/echap-01.pdf

[3] Ahmed Nesar (2015) Why are Farmers Resisting Land Acquisition, despite Agriculture turning Non profitable? India Resists, dated February 26 http://www.indiaresists.com/why-are-farmers-resisting-land-acquisition-despite-agriculture-turning-non-profitable/

[4] Government of Odisha (2013) Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on General and Social Sector Volume 2 Report No. 4 for the year ended  March 2012 http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/cag%20report%20on%20orissa.pdf Also, Vijayalakshmi TN (2012) CAG Blows lid off land grab in Odisha, Down to Earth, dated March 30 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/cag-blows-lid-land-grab-odisha 

[5] Chakravartty Anupam (2015) CAG: Adani acquired forest creeks wrongly classified as degraded forests, Down to Earth dated April 3, http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/cag-adani-acquired-forested-creeks-wrongly-classified-degraded-forests

[6] Suchitra M (2012) CAG exposes Land Scam in Andhra Down to Earth dated March 30 http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/cag-exposes-land-scam-andhra






.

 

 

 




 

Share on Tumblr

 

 


Comments are moderated