Context
In the light of recent Bhangar violence in Kolkata WB, the article states that despite the new land acquisition law, questions of resettlement and rehabilitation persist
What happened?
On 18th January 2017 hundreds of angry locals blocked major roads in Bhangar, 40 km from the state capital Kolkata, demanding an assurance from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee that their land will not be forcibly acquired by the government for a power sub-station
- Agitations have left two dead, several arrested and many injured since November 2016
The Bhangar story
In the violence in Bhangar, the Trinamool Congress that agitated against the high-handedness of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Nandigram and Singur claims the people first agreed to part with 14 acres of land and then outsiders created unrest.
- No knowledge about full extent of the project: The local residents claim that they had no knowledge of the full extent of the project. In negotiations with the government and the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, they were informed only of a power sub-station that would improve the power supply of the area. They discovered belatedly that on completion, the Bhangar sub-station would receive power from the Sagardighi thermal power plant and the Farakka unit that would then be transmitted via high-tension wires to Kolkata, the northeastern States and Purnea in Bihar
- Demand for an EIA:They demand an environmental impact assessment to ascertain the adverse impacts of the high-transmission lines on the local population, agriculture and ecology
- Land acquired fairly: State representatives claim that land was acquired with consent, compensation was negotiated with the residents, and outsiders are instigating violent agitations.
Author’s contention
Author contends that if the new land acquisition law was improvement over the previous one and was enacted to comprehensively address opposition to land acquisition, why do governments still get land acquisition wrong?
Issues plaguing new land acquisition law
- Access to information: Author states that the information regarding projects is seldom accessible and those affected discover it by accident or by exercising their RTI
- Prior informed consent is a farce: There are no clear procedures for establishing consent in the case of private sector involvement and there is complete exemption for state-led projects
- Meagre compensation: Compensation offered is very little to offset the loss of livelihood and biodiversity. Small and marginal farmers are provided with too little a compensation and once that is finished, they are left to fend for themselves
State intervention
Author states that wherever there is an agitation towards land acquisition by locals, it is termed as being under influence of outsiders by the state.
- Local infrastructure devalued: The idea of infrastructure as understood by state is such that it benefits only the capitalist side of the puzzle.Existing agrarian and local infrastructure is devalued, rendered backward, and considered in need of improvement for achieving greater economic growth
Examples:
Author cites example of Narmada BachaoAndolan (NBA), Protest over Dholera Smart City project wherein the water that was promised to peasants in Gujarat by the construction of the SSP is now to be officially diverted to supply real estate and infrastructure projects for a city& the POSCO agitation, to demonstrate that those protesting against such infrastructure projects backed by the state, are locals and not outsiders
In the ensuing paragraphs, author presents us with the following questions,
Q: Who pays for the losses of life, livelihood, peace and well-being of the local residents during months and years, sometimes decades, of agitation?
Q: What of the loss to the exchequer, and ultimately the Indian public, for all the effort made to suppress agitations and democratic principles by the state’s sovereign assertions over the greater common good?
Q: Where does the state source its sovereign power over citizens in a democracy?
Eminent Domain
State acquisition of land is done under the doctrine of Eminent Domain. It implies the right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation
Conclusion
Author concludes by stating that the Eminent Domain is a colonial era legacy that should be done away with
