Land Displacement Problem In India

Introduction :-
The issue of displacement is seen as necessary evil in order to construct industries, infrastructure
such as dams, mining, roads, and power projects, which are intended to serve “greater good”. The
study will only focus on the issue of involuntary displacement in India. I find the due to growing
violence from the state on the name of development in many parts of India. The violence over land
acquisition by the government witnessed recently. The drive for land acquisition on the name of
modernisation and development has been the reason behind rise in protests by the farmers and
tribal people across the country. The focus on economic issues overlook other no less important
issues such as social and cultural, which may proved to be crucial in building links and networks in
the new environment. The protests by civil society and peoples against land acquisition have been
growing in recent years. These protests and violence increasingly question the so-called “greater
good”. The recent protest in Bhatta-Parsaul of Noida in Uttar Pradesh state tells us another centre of
violence provoked by an attempt to displace the farmers. In fact, whether it is Bhatta-Parsaul in UP,
Nandigram in West Bengal, Chattisgarh, Jarkhand, Andrha Pradesh, Kerala and recently in Tamil
Nadu all point the need to examine the matter immediately. The violence witnessed in Nandigram in
West Bengal state in 2007 , where 14 people were killed while protesting the notification of land
acquisition of 25 000 acres of land under Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for SEZ project of Indonesian
Salem chemicals. [1] [2] And also Bhatta-Parsaul in UP, Jagatsinghpur in Orissa, Jaitpur in Maharastra
and so on, the government has used police force to control and intimidate any genuine protest
against its land grab polices. For instance, in Bhatta-Parsaul Noida UP state about 6 000 acres of land
is being acquired by Jaiprakash associate company to build luxury township facilities and 165 km
Yamuna Expressway. In total the land of 1225 villages to be acquired for Expressway. The land has
been taken under British colonial Land Acquisition Act of 894 from farmers at 6 US dollars per square
meter by the government, while it was sold to developers at 134.50 per square meter i.e. 200 000 %
increase in prices. [3] [4] It appears that the land dispossession contributes to poverty, landlessness
and violence. I also find that in India inadequate attention has been paid to the process of
resettlement. Moreover, a deeper evaluation on this issue provides us different picture about the
disastrous impact on local communities, who have been forced to move. This article seeks to bring
out a critical evaluation on this subject in the light of past experiences and outlines an approach to a
more humane and equitable policy. I will also draw attention from other countries experience to
develop a deeper understanding on this subject area. Various studies have highlighted the
displacementi) and rehabilitation problems and began to question specific projects and
developmental polices which induce displacement. [5][6] However, there is a lack of study
questioning the logic of industrialisation based on ‘free market’ii) policies to benefit few while losses
for many. Against this background, the paper takes a critical examination of the literature in the field
of development-induced displacement to provide a better understanding of the reality on the
ground. The existing literature on the issue of displacement can be broadly categorised as following:
one group saw displacement to be an inevitable outcome of development. They suggest, the only
policy option is to minimise the adverse impact of displacement. [7][8] For them resettlement
becomes the key focus area. While the other group, considers displacement as a manifestation of a
crisis in development itself. Here displacement is not seen as an unwanted outcome of well meaning
processes of development, but as the evidence of its uneven distribution of gainers and losers. This
view is most effectively articulated by the protest movements and the opposition to such projects.
[9]. Parasuraman (1999) argues that the development projects as examples of structural biases
favouring a minority group “while millions of people pay the price without reaping any benefits”.
(Page 39) He finds unfair outcomes in relation to land acquisition, socio-economic consequences of
displacement, and conditions of resettlement. According to him, displacement is inherent in the
policy of development and therefore, he suggests for a reconsideration of the large projects that
may led to large-scale displacement. (Page 265) It seems that the neoliberal economic reforms have
to be achieved accumulation by dispossessioniii). This could be easily seen with the land acquisition
process. The question also arises why China has succeeded, where others have failed? Picciotto et al
(2001; 11) find that China’s performance is far better on the issues of resettlement than India.
According to him, “China’s unique performance is primarily due to ‘its system of government and
vision’, which saw resettlement programmes ‘as an opportunity and not as burden’. “In particular
[Chinese experiences in the Shiukou and Yantan projects] their success with income restoration of
resettlers is attributed to the skilful use of available resources: ‘orchards on terraced slopes’;
bamboo and tea on the steeper slopes; forestry on the steepest slopes; goats in the drier hills;
integrated fish, duck and hog farms near lake; oyster beds and fish cages in the lake; and pigs and
mushrooms in confined spaces next to the house”. Globalisation is seen as another opportunity to
dispose and displace communities, states and nations are seen as impediment towards market
integration. [10] The Indian government acquire land from the people and then hand it over to the
corporate sectors and real estate developers. [11] The commodification of land is fuelling the
corporate land acquisition in India, both through the creation of SEZs and through foreign direct
investment. Under liberalisation the international capital finds higher profits to invest in mining and
urban property development. The global finance is much larger compare to value of real goods and
services produced in the world.
With the opening of Indian economy to the foreign monopolies, the international financial
institutions were increasingly offered to finance such mega projects. However, with the increased
protests and opposition to such projects by the local people, these international institutions began
to demand adequate (market based) compensation from the government. Also agricultural
labourers, artisans, fishermen, sharecroppers and other service providers with no formal title on
land have been adversely affected and there is an urgent need to take into account to these people
as well. [12]
Development Paradigm :-
There are broad two types of discussions taking place on this issue namely: those who argue for
faster economic growth and others stress on the issues of environmental protection. There is a need
to understand the choices to be made especially large projects that are considered crucial to
economic growth but are detrimental ecological and environment. India’s economic liberalisation
also known as New Economic Policy was launched in 1991. The major policy change was growth
centred focus. It did not make any reference to long standing problems of the Indian economy such
as poverty, malnutrition, unemployment, ill health, illiteracy and environmental degradation etc.
However, Indian economy is predominantly rural in character. This is evidenced from the fact that in
2011, about 74 % of its population lived in some half million villages. India’s two-thirds workforce
engaged in agricultural sector, and this sector contributed about 26 % of the GDP in 2009. Since the
adoption of neoliberal reforms, the foreign investors have increased their presence in India. And
various collaboration and joint ventures projects have been launched. For example, in recent years
as many as 341 SEZs have been approved and set up across India. On the name of efficiency in
agriculture sector, the World Bank and mainstream economists support increased capital
intervention and commodification of land. For instance, the World Bank (2010) argues in favour of
large scale land acquisition as a way to reduce poverty. The Bank suggests that large-scale land
acquisition can be vehicle for poverty reduction. The report further suggests that increased private
capital investment in agriculture will create more jobs and new opportunities for contract farmers.
[13] The World Bank (2010) also claims that land acquisition could reduce poverty by making better
use of underutilised land. (pp 77) The study cites the examples of large scale mechanised production
of soya and grains in North America and Argentina. The study notes, “near-industrial methods of
quality control and production at low cost, managed by high quality agronomists using land leased
by corporations that pay high rents for land, making it advantages for landholder to cease their own
production. (pp 33) The report does not provide any concrete evidence of job creation due to
increased mechanisation in large farms. It would like to see reversal of land reforms in developing
countries. It seems that the only success criteria are efficiency and profits. The study favours a
laissez-faire approach in which private investors take command from small and medium farmers into
contract farmers arguing that, “productivity and welfare enhancing transactions can occur without
the need for active intervention by the state”. (pp 34) Contrary to the Bank’s claims, Li (2011) finds in
Indonesia that the influx of capital in agriculture did not result into job creation; it rather widened
rural inequality and increased involvement of private capital. No jobs were created to affected
people, as initially claimed. Li (2011) study in Indonesia that, “Where large scale plantation and
smallholders’ contract schemes have a long history…the predicament of people who are displaced
from their ‘inefficient’ farms in a context where generalised capitalist system fails to provide them
with an alternative livelihood or living wage”(pp281). [14] Li further argues that “large scale farming
not only fails to reduce poverty, it actually produces it”. (pp 285) In fact, the World Bank’s led
‘Structural Adjustment Programmes (also known as neoliberal reforms) were launched in the
developing countries during the 1980s. Thanks to these reforms that subsidies to agriculture sector
were withdrawn and private investment was to replace public investment, along with the removal to
trade and investment in the developing countriesiv) .
After the sharp rise in food prices in 2008, the global food companies sought to strengthen vertical
integration of the global supply chains, with the aim to ensure security of supply and to take the
benefits of liberalisation in trade and investment, which was aimed ultimately to raise their profits
and strengthen their control over markets. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in agriculture began to
rise as a result. According to UNCTAD (2009) report, the FDI in agriculture sector rose from an
average of 600 million US $ annually in 1990s to an average of 3 billion US $ in 2008. [15]
Researchers have predicted that investors will replace food crops by cash crops producing either
non-food commodities –for instance, energy crops-or exporting all or most of the production abroad
thus, worsening the situation of food availability in the host country. [16][17][18] It also appears that
the World Bank (2010) report overlooks the governance issue in the developing countries and how
effectively these countries could manage investment in agriculture, which is expected to contribute
towards poverty reduction and overall improve the conditions of rural population. For example,
there is huge corruption and illegal mining has been exposed in central India. For example, the
controversies about POSCO and Vedanta projects in Orissa, which acquired large tracts of land for
mining purposes. Besides displacements, the projects have damaged ecology and local environment.
The mining sector in India is increasingly seen quick profit to be made with combination of illegality
and corruption. This has got further encouragement because after economic liberalisation mining
has given huge opportunity for capital accumulation to those have the money and right connection.
Fortunes are being made by people with money and power, who extract mineral resources at the
expense of local populations, whose traditional livelihood are destroyed. The mining and quarrying
sector currently contributes only 2 % of India’s GDP. The mineral production was reported from 32
states of India, but among onshore areas and states dominated such as Andhra Pradesh (12.3 %
share in total production by value, Chattisgarh (9.2 %), Jarkhand (9 %) and Orissa (11.9 %). These
regions are also home to large tribal populations and these are also the regions where violent
political movements i.e. Maoists insurgency are on the rise in recent years. Finally in the
development and modernisation debate, the issues of sustainable developmentv) have become an
important issue in the international forum, especially the since the publication of the report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development (WECD, 1987) also known as Our Common
Future. It was seen as first major international initiative to raise the awareness of the government
and public about the complexity of relationship between economic growth, needs of the people and
sustainable development. [19]
The Displacement Scenario :-
Displacement is described as dislocation of people from their native place and region. It often
exacerbates rather than mitigates economic insecurity, helplessness and alienation. This could mean
loss of economic livelihoods and communities. After independence the developmental projects were
launched by the government, which were formulated, designed and carried out by the engineers
and bureaucrats, who had no concern for environmental and rehabilitation issues. There is a
disagreement over exact number of displaced people. It seems likely that no less than 40- 50 million
people have been displaced. Various studies on displacement point out that in earlier phase until
1980 was marked by meagre compensation towards the affected people and lack of any attempt to
understand the issues of rehabilitation of the displaced people. Most of the affected people were
from poor households and with the displacement they were further marginalised due to loss of their
livelihoods. The involuntary displacementvi of people due to acquisition of their land for
developmental activities across India is a major issue. They have resulted in widespread protests
across the country. People began to protests, for example, major projects such as Sardar Sarovar,
Salient Valley, the Manglore Thermal Power, the Dabhol power, Maha Mumbai Special Economic
Zones, the Nandigram SEZ, the Singur Tata Motors and so on. 25th International Congress on
Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering IOP Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference
Series 364 (2012) 012108 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012108 4 In India people continue to be
involuntary dislocated and the goal of resettlement remains exceedingly difficult to achieve.
Moreover, the aims of sustainable development, where people are better than they were before
resettlement is far from being achieved. Seeing this issue merely a financial seems to be incorrect.
Compensation by itself cannot fully restore and improve levels of income of those who have been
involuntary displaced. In the 1990s, development-induced displacement emerged as a major
concern and also a challenge among the Indian social researchers. The concern arose because of
dramatic rise developmental projects and urban expansion in the 1980s fuelled by construction of
dams and urban development coupled with disastrous outcomes in resettlement experiences. [20]
This led to an increase in popular resentment and protest, which brought the issue on forefront. The
Upper Krishna irrigation project (i.e. dams and reservoir) displaced about 300 000 peoples. Loss of
livelihoods and displacement has become a recurring feature of Singrauli region of Madhya Pradesh
state mainly due to construction of dams, power and mining since 1960s. Displacement in the
Singrauli region began first by the construction of Rihand dam and Govind Sagar Reservoir in the
1960s. Later on in 1980 Thermal power projects were set up, which led to expansion of coal mining
in the region. All these activities have initiated a series of displacement and loss of livelihoods of the
people in the region (Sharma, and Singh, 2009). The Sardar Sarovar project has affected nearly 300
villages, with 163 000 people have been displaced and among them tribal population has been
severely affected (see Table 1). (Parasuraman, 1999: 167) In fact, it seems that the colonial land
acquisition Act 1894 ignores that fact that in rural economy land is the sustenance not merely of
land owners but also to the landless service groups. To attract private investors and profits have
become the sole criteria. The force is being used to evict the people from their homes and lands,
where they may have lived for generations is unjust and inhumane and could not be justified in truly
democratic sense. On this issue government seems to be bent on advocating and protecting the
interest of tiny corporate sector. As Medha Pathkar, one of the leading figures in the movement
against Narmada project points out in World Commission on Dams’ report, 2000: “Even with rights
recognised, risks assessed and stakeholders identified, existing iniquitous power relations would too
easily allow developers to dominate and distort such process… Understanding this takes us beyond a
faith in negotiations”. (pp 320-21)
The government of India admitted that several million people displaced by dams, mines, industries,
power plants etc. and still ‘awaiting rehabilitation’, a figure regarded very conservative by most
independent researchers. The developmental projects are always put forward as development for
national interest. The communities, who lost their livelihoods for so-called ‘greater good’ and
national interest, would be making this sacrifice to benefit the entire nation. (India Today, 2007)
Involuntary displacement occurred due to the need to build dams, transportation, power
generation, urban development and so on. It is claimed that such projects creates employment and
improves services. However, it also displaces people from their land, community and cultural
heritage and raises major issues social justice and equity. In India, for example, researchers found
that the country’s developmental projects since independence have displaced more than 20 million
people. And most of these people have not been rehabilitated. The rehabilitation programmes since
independence have performed miserably. Relocation of human population from the protected
areas, also known as wild life conservation, affects peoples’ socio-economic conditions. At least 50
million people have been displaced since independence under the colonial Land Acquisition Act of
1894. Most of these people are difficult to trace, who are living in urban shanty towns across the big
cities in India. Despite the years of protests and demonstrations on the issue of displacement and
rehabilitation little progress has been done to ameliorate the sufferings of the affected people.
However, the government has announced its policy on National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Policy (NRRP) in 2007 which states: “through a careful quantification of costs and benefits that will
accrue to society at large, of the desirability and justifiability of each project. The adverse impact on
affected families - economic environmental, social and cultural - needs to be accessed in a
participatory and transparent manner”. (Cited in Sampat, 2008:25) On the issue of displacement
risks, Cernea (2000) has identified key vital components such as: Landlessness; joblessness;
homelessness; marginalisation; food insecurity; community disarticulation; loss of access to common
property resources. According to him, preventing these factors would mean reversing the risks. He
emphasis that land is the basis of people’s productive system in agrarian society and if it is not
replaced by steady income generating employment would lead towards impoverishment. Cernea
notes: “Expropriation of land removes the main foundation upon which people’s productive
systems, commercial activities, and livelihoods are constructed. This is the principal form of de-
capitalisation and pauperisation of displaced people, as they lose both natural and man made
capital” (Cernea, 2000:3663). Reddy finds that landlessness rose sharply from 20 % before
displacement to 72 % after in the coal mining region of Singrauli (Cited in Cernea, 2000: 3663)vii) . In
recent years states like Gujarat, Haryana, Jarkhand, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal have
displaced very large number of people in order to acquire land for SEZs that was expected to attract
millions of US dollars on nearly half-million acres of land. It was also claimed that these investments
would create more than half million jobs, but due to high mechanised and automation the job
creation was far less than expected. The mechanisation appears to be the main reason for high job
costs. For example, the average size of coal mines increased from 150 acres in 1976 to 800 acres
1995, but it created fewer jobs. (pp 74-75) [23] Various studies have pointed out that nearly 50
million people have been displaced since independence due to developmental projects among them
40 % were tribal, 20 % dalits (untouchable castes) and 20 % were from backward castes.
Corporate Industrialisation :-
The government enacted the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) Act in 2005. Under this act, the
government has approved formally 404 projects, involving 54 280 hectares of land, which is seen by
the policy makers as new solutions leading towards growth and development, which is in the line to
25th International Congress on Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 364 (2012) 012108 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012108 6
keep with the global neoliberal discourse. Since 1991 neoliberal reforms, the government is seen as
a promoter of corporate-led growth, where the state suppose to acquire the land for SEZs and
transfer the land to the private developers. Here the issue of displacement is being transferred to
private arena and compensation to be negotiated by the market, state keep itself out with the
rehabilitation responsibilities. Export-led growth has been prescribed by the international financial
agencies as the only option available for developing countries in order to achieve economic growth,
industrialisation and create employment opportunities since the 1980s. However, this policy was
whole heartedly was adopted in 1991 when the Indian government experienced acute balance of
payment crisis and had to ask for IMF bailout. As a result, India was asked to open its economy for
foreign capital. And in 2005 SEZ Act was approved by the Parliament, despite the opposition from
the people and various organisations. It was claimed that it would attract huge amount of foreign
capital and technology leading towards job creation along with efficiency and competition. Seeing
the realities in India the fact is that at present the only industrial development option possible under
neoliberal policy is corporate-led industrialisation. Due to the existence of mass poverty and
inequality in rural areas, such industrialisation is bound to be against the interest of majority of rural
population. Moreover, according to various studies for the last nearly two decades after the
adoption of neoliberal policy’s impact on job creation was dismal. For example, between 1991 and
2007, the number of person employed in organised manufacturing has remained constant in
absolute terms. It does not withstand of an 8 % annual growth rate in manufacturing output. Patnaik
(2007) take the issues of industrialisation and job creation into wider perspective and argues that
“The argument that “industrialisation” is necessary because it will take surplus labour out of
agriculture is completely baseless. True, in the case of the advanced capitalist countries
“industrialisation was accompanied by a shift of surplus labour out of agriculture but that is because
such surplus labour simply migrated to the “new world” (where native population were forcibly
driven off its land); in addition unemployment was exported to the colonies in the form of de-
industrialisation”. (pp 1893) Patnaik (2007) further notes “tragedies like Nandigram are inherent in
the operation of a neoliberal policy regime. These tragedies are being debated as a conflict between
needs of industrialisation and the peasantry, as if the corporate nature of that industrialisation did
not matter. Nandigram should make us look beyond scapegoats at the process of “accumulation
through encroachment”, which neoliberalism has unleashed in the country”. (pp 1893) The
industries need to be promoted, but at the same time, the government must ensure that its
destructive effects upon the people, who faces dispossession are minimised. But that cannot be
realised if corporate industrialisation is only available option, under such regime state’s leading role
is being replaced by markets. On the name of “virtues of free-markets” and competition, the
monopolists are given enormous power to undermine very competition they are claiming to
establish. In India what we witness at present is not capitalist competing against one another for
state government projects, but state governments competing against one another for attracting
investors. There is need for deeper understanding of a real process of primitive accumulation of
capital, which is taking place through encroachments, which neoliberalism has enforced in India at
much faster rate than earlier period. The proponent of “free market” policy view land grab as
economic opportunity for rural poor. (World Bank 2010) They insist on the need for land market
governance. While the critique see as a major threat to the lives and livelihoods on the rural poor.
According to them such grab of land would lead towards increased rural socio-economic inequalities
and must be opposed. World Bank (2010) provides suggestions ‘for responsible agriculture
investment’. It supports new investment in agriculture, while acknowledging in rural areas land
purchase have taken place largely where buyers could exploit corrupt or indebted governments with
little ability to regulate the transactions or targeting the rural poor and expelling them from their
lands. The World Bank report does overlook the important questions of winner and losers and what
would be consequences of such policies in terms of social, political and rural power configuration.
The 25th International Congress on Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 364 (2012) 012108 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012108 7
political economy of land is centred on food, mineral and ecology. The key issues are who owns the
land and what is being done with the appropriated surplus. The question arises: what changes in
agrarian structures are emerging? What are rural differentiation in terms of class following changes
in land ownership, organisation of production and exchange? The question is whether the
safeguards have been put in place for the rural poor. It could be due to active participation of rural
poor to safe guards their political and economic interests through political mobilisation. But when
the affected people were organised the outcomes had been different. For instance, The Silent Valley
project in Kerala, which is one of he richest habitats of fauna and flora in South Asia, was threatened
by hydroelectric power project. The movement to oppose the power project was led by radical
organisation called Kerala Sahitya Shastra Parishad. The organisation was also involved in spread of
literacy and to raise the awareness of science and healthcare among the local inhabitants. Due to
protest the project was cancelled by the government and such unique bio-diversity area was saved
from destruction. Another movement to oppose the privatisation of Bharat Aluminium Company
(BALCO) in Chattisgarh state, which is also located in the tribal areas. The land initially taken over by
the government to be used for public purposes but sold to private company, the protesters
contacted the Supreme Court, but judgement came in favour of the government. In western India,
the opposition against, for example, the construction of dams and reservoirs across the Narmada
River was led by Narmada Bachao Andolan. [ However, despite the protest movement, dams were
constructed and these projects have displaced thousands of tribal people. In 1993, after a long
struggle and protest finally, the World Bank cancelled loan for Sardar Sarovar project on Narmada.
This is the first time an international financial institution has gone back from its previous
commitments due to environmental and rehabilitation reasons. However, the first criticism of World
Bank funding by NGOs and by local people was on Polonroeste road project, which is located in the
north-west Brazil. This road project was supposed to be 1500 km long and pass through densely
populated south-central to connect with sparsely populated Amazon in 1987. The protestors
demanded changes in Banks’ funding, which could damage forests and natural environment and the
Bank was forced suspend its loan until the government show some progress on its commitments.
The Narmada project is an inter-state development scheme, which was seen as an enormous
opportunity for hydro power and irrigation. It was supposed to be one of the largest water reservoir
projects in the world. There was several big and small dams to be build including big dam called
Sardar Sarovar dam, which would be as high as 45 storey building and over nine km long at the crest.
Its reservoir could be for more than 200 km long and it would ultimately displace 40 000 households.
The proposed canals would spread for 7500 km and irrigate about 2 million hectares of land,
displace 68 000 households. Wade (2011) notes, “(the) resistant to the Narmada projects began as a
“bottom up” social movement (in contrast to Polonroeste), led by Indian NGOs working in the
Narmada valley. Their resistance sparked a campaign within India that drew unprecedented support
from the middleclass public, among whom it signalled a profound shift away from Nehru’s
“hardware” notion of progress….. The translational campaign against Narmada stiffened senior
management’s commitment to environmental assessment procedures and the creation of a large
environmental complex. But the main effect came later. In response to years of pressure the Bank
cancelled its involvement with the Sardar Sarovar in 1993 – the first time the Bank has cancelled a
loan anywhere in the world on environmental or social grounds”. (pp. 45) In 2006, when Narmada
Bachao Andolan opposed to raise the Sardar Sarovar dam from 110 to 121 meters, its leader Medha
Patkar sat on fast on the issue of rehabilitation brought to prominence and Indian Supreme court
was approached to provide hearing on this matter. The land Acquisition Act 1894 was used to
discipline people under whom private land could be acquired by the government for “public
purpose”. The compensation was to be paid not as negotiated sum but a figure reached by
government officials. The proposed amount could be challenged to the court but objections could be
procedural or about valuation and not on public purpose for which 25th International Congress on
Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering IOP Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference
Series 364 (2012) 012108 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012108 8 government proposed to take
over private property, not open to contestation. Moreover, this was only supposed to challenge
about compensation for land and property acquired and not about rehabilitation of the displaced
people. [24] [25] Although, the government rejected the World Commission on Dams report, but
with the publication of this report in 1998 and anti dam movement had forced the government to
rethink on environmental and resettlement policies. [26]
Conclusion :-
The international financial institutions lend support to liberalise, which is seen as a means of
increasing the economic efficiency, but in fact it is a policy tools to promote capital accumulation
among the small minority, while landlessness and misery for the majority of the people these state.
[27] [28] I think it is incorrect to treat land merely as productive elements as commodity. This
approach could overlook its cultural heritage significance. Such approach could also neglect its social
status, community and cultural aspects. As Karl Polanyi (1944: 73) noted nearly seven decades ago:
“To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of human beings and their
natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the
demolition of society. For the alleged commodity ‘labour power’ cannot be shoved about, used
indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be
the bearer of this peculiar commodity… Robed of the protective covering of cultural institutions,
human being would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as the victims of acute
social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime and starvation”. [29] It is often emphasised that
Indian economy is booming for the last two decades, however, poverty and hunger is on the rise.
More than 40 % of its children are malnourished. In fact, at present in India the attempts is not being
made towards over all industrialisation, but to the accumulation of top elites on one side and
increasing of unemployment, dispossession, the proliferation of the services and pauperisation at
other pole. [30] [31] The study finds the current government policy to acquire land for the
corporate-led industrialisation is incorrect and only benefits the tiny minority, while adversely
affecting many in rural India. The land acquisition without the prior consent of its owner could not
be justified on any ground. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 does not take into account the
conditions of land and the purpose of acquisition is not properly explained to the affected
communities. In fact, it is not only the issue of compensation and rehabilitation but also the
development strategy. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in principle is about the forest land not
owned by individuals, are state property. But at the same time the state also has the right to define a
public purpose and deprive individuals of their sustenance. [32] [33] However, in recent years it is
used to enhance corporate profits. State acquires land and then later on sold to private developers.
[34] [35] I find that national parks, shopping malls, dams, power station, industries and
infrastructure are being built in India by displacing rural communities and their livelihoods. The
displaced hardly received any benefits from the so-called developmental projects. Today in India
about two-thirds of the people depends on the land. A critical issue gaining ground whether those
who lose out in the process of development have been consulted al all. Or they should be entitled to
be part while deciding the future management of natural resources, which are integral part of their
livelihood and existence. The rural poor and tribal communities are treated as citizens without rights
and deprived of their livelihood without their consent. While, on these developmental projects,
most of the jobs filled with outsiders because those who lose their land and livelihoods lack the
suitable skills required for the job. In Indian economy agriculture plays an important role in shaping
the socio-economic and cultural well being of people. And their involuntary displacement becomes
complex issues among academic debates, and policy discussions and at times in the form of
protesters by affected people. In fact, the neoliberal reforms have been shift away from land
reforms to that of removal of government protection to agricultural land to be used for industrial
and commercial purposes. This also coincided with drastic reduction of government subsidies for
agriculture sector. 25th International Congress on Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering
IOP Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference Series 364 (2012) 012108 doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/364/1/012108 9 In a predominantly agriculture country like India, agriculture development
should be a prerequisite for an overall balanced development. Agriculture investment must benefit
the rural poor rather than big corporate. Also investment must take place in order to reduce hunger,
malnutrition in rural India rather than aggravating them. A coordinated strategy is needed to
promote responsible investment to address these above issues aiming to uplift the living conditions
of majority of the rural inhabitants. India does not need land grab policy to benefit the business
corporate but land conservation policy, which conserve eco-systems and maintains biodiversity. The
government should invest more in agriculture sector in order to increase production and create jobs
in rural sectors, not on the basis of ‘free market’ policies but through empowering small and
marginal farmers and agriculture labourers and thus raising their incomes and food security.
Notes :-
i) The displacement in India at present could be described as ‘primary accumulation of capital’.
However, it is very different from the classical variety of the same process that took place several
centuries ago in Western Europe. The difference is that in India the disposed are separated forcibly
from the means of production, can no longer find jobs in the industrial sector. (Bagchi, 2005)
ii) See Kalim Siddiqui, 1992.
iii) David Harvey (2005) explains that accumulation by dispossession includes, the commodification
and privatisation of land and forceful expulsion of peasant population…; conversion of various
property rights (i.e. common, collective and state) into exclusive private property rights…;
commodification of labour power …use of credit system as a radical means of accumulation by
dispossession. (Harvey, 2005)
iv) The key elements of the neoliberal policy reforms include trade and investment openness,
income deflating fiscal and monetary measures, resulting in cuts in public and social sector spending
and privatisation of public sector undertakings (see Siddiqui, 2010; Harvey, 2005).
v) Sustainable development is supposed to improve the well being of people over time. A
sustainable society a well articulated productive knowledge and the capacity for mutual self-help.
vi) The multilateral donor agency has broadly defined displacement to include not only physical
eviction, but also denial of access to survival and livelihood resources (see Cernea, 2000) However, in
this paper we have restricted to the term displacement to physical eviction.
vii) Mathur (1999) notes that the people in Singrauli region in India gave up their lands for the
reconstruction of power plants have often no access to electricity. According to him, development
projects are largely being seen as inimical to peoples’ interest and they are in fact contributing
towards worsening rather than improving their situation.
References :-
[1] Patnaik, Prabhat, (2007) “In the Aftermath of Nandigram”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
42, No.2, pp 1893, 26th May, Mumbai.
[2] Chenoy, Kamal (2007) “Nandigram is not Gujarat”, Asian Age, 26th November.
[3] Sampat, P. (2008) “Special Economic Zones in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 12th July,
pp.25-29, Mumbai.
[4] Sharma, R.N. and Singh, S.R. (2009) “Displacement in Singrauli Region: Entitlements and
Rehabilitation”, Economic and Political Weekly, 19th December, Mumbai.
[5] Iyer, Ramaswamy (2007) “Towards a Just Displacement and Rehabilitation Policy”, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol.42, No.30, Mumbai. 25th International Congress on Condition Monitoring and
Diagnostic Engineering IOP Publishing Journal of Physics: Conference Series 364 (2012) 012108
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012108 10
[6] World Commission on Dams, (2000) Dams and Development: a new framework for decision
making, London: Earth Scan Publication.
[7] Picciotto, R. et al (2001) Involuntary Resettlement: Comparative Perspective, pp 11, London:
Transaction Publishers.
[8] Cernea, Michael M. (2000) “Risk, Safeguards and Reconstruction: A model for population
displacement and resettlement”, Economic and Political Weekly, 7th October
[9] Parasuraman, S. (1999) The Development Dilemma: Displacement in India, pp 39, pp 265,
Basingstoke: Macmillan. ;
[10] Siddiqui, Kalim (2008) “Globalisation and Developing Countries: Opportunities or
Marginalisation?” (Eds.) Verma, S. B. et al (2008) Globalisation at the Cross Roads, pp. 46-71, New
Delhi: Sarup & Sons Publishers.
[11] Siddiqui, Kalim (2010) “Globalisation and Neo-liberal Economic Reforms in India: A Critical
Review”, (Eds) (2010) S. K. Pramanick and R. Ganguly, Globalization in India: New Frontiers and
Emerging Challenges, (pp 219-243) New Delhi: Prentice Hall.
[12] Wade, Robert (2011) “Muddy Waters: Inside the World Bank as it struggled with the Narmada
Projects”, Economic and Political Weekly, 1st October, Mumbai.
[13] World Bank, (2010) Rising global interest in farmland: can it yield sustainable and equitable
benefits?, pp 77, pp 33, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
[14] Li, T.M. (2011) “Centring Labour in the Land Grab Debate”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol.38,
No.2, March, pp.281-98, pp 285.
[15] UNCTAD Report (2009) World Investment Report, Transnational Corporations, agricultural
prodcution and development, New York: UNCTAD.
[16] De Schutter, Olivier (2011) “How not to think of land-grabbing: three critiques of large scale
investment in farmland”, Journal of Peasant Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2, March, pp.249-279.
[17] Singh, Katar (1999) “Sustainable Development: Some Reflections”, Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol.54, No.1, January-March, New Delhi.
[18] Chopra, Kanchan (1998) “Institutions for Sustainable Agriculture Development”, Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics, July-September, New Delhi.
[19] Siddiqui, Kalim (1994) “International Trade and Problems of Inequality in the Developing
Countries” (1994) in Aall, C. and Solheim, E., (Eds.) Miljø Årboka (in Norwegian), Det Norske
Samlaget, Oslo (pp 20-39)
[20] Siddiqui, Kalim (1993) “Large Dams and Environmental Problems”, Dag og Tid, (in Norwegian)
25th February, Oslo, Norway.
[21] Sharma, R.N. (2003) “Involuntary Displacement: a few encounters”, Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol.37, No.9, 1-7th March, pp. 907-12, Mumbai.
[22] India Today, (2007) “Special Article on SEZs”, 30th July, New Delhi
[23] Fernandes, W. and Asif, M. (1997) Development Induced Displacement in Orissa 1951-1995, pp.
74-75, New Delhi: Indian Social Institute.
[24] Singh, Satyajit (1997) Taming the Waters, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
[25] Asian Development Bank, (2006) Capacity Building from Resettlement Risk Management, India
Country Report, March, Manila: ADB.
[26] Bagchi, A.K. (2005) Perilous Passage: Mankind and Global Ascendancy of Capital, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
[27] Brand, Laurie A. (2001) “Displacement for Development? The Impact of Changing State Society
Relations”, World Development, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.961-976.
[28] Bernstein, Henry (2010) Class Dynamics of Agrarian Change, Halifax: Fernwood publishing.
[29] Polanyi, Karl (1944) The Great Transformation, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
[30] Government of India (2007) The National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, Ministry of
Rural Development, New Delhi: Government of India.
[31] Harvey, David (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, New York: Oxford University Press 25th
International Congress on Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Engineering IOP Publishing Journal of
Physics: Conference Series 364 (2012) 012108 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/364/1/012108 11
[32] Mathur, H.M. (1999) “The Impoverishing Potential of Development Projects”, Development and
Cooperation, No.6, Frankfurt.
[33] Siddiqui, Kalim (1992) ‘Free Market Policies and Poverty in the Developing Countries’, Bergens
Tidende, (in Norwegian) 13th March, Norway. [34] World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED) (1998) Our Common Future, Delhi: Oxford University Press. [35] World Bank,
(2008) World Development Report: Agriculture for Development, Washington, D.C.: World Bank.