The Plunder of Land - Implosion: India's Tryst with Reality - page 117

In its approach paper for India's 12th five-year plan, India's Planning Commission,
which monitors the economy and proposes policy changes, said that independent estimates
suggested only a third of the 60m people who had been displaced by development projects
over 60 years had been resettled 'in a planned manner'. 16 Most of them were 'rural poor
without any assets, marginal farmers, poor fisher-folk and quarry workers'. Around 40 per
cent of those displaced were tribals and 20 per cent were Dalits. 'Given that 90 per cent
of our coal, more than 50 per cent of most minerals and most prospective dam sites are in
Adivasi regions, there is likely to be continuing contention over issues of land acquisition
in these areas, inhabited by some of our most deprived people.'
The way forward, said the Planning Commission, was to 'move away from the colonial
perspective of treating people as “subjects”', and instead treat them as citizens with rights
guaranteed under the Constitution. That required a 'fair land acquisition law which resorts
to compulsory acquisition only where it is unavoidable and provides fair competition'. The
law should also mandate resettlement and rehabilitation provisions that were 'not reduced
to what they have become, conditionalities without consequences'. Also required was an
'unequivocal commitment to imaginatively exploring ways of rebuilding the livelihoods of
those adversely affected by development projects'.
This view underpinned government plans for new land legislation to replace the old
1894-based laws. Parliamentary Bills were first prepared in 2007, but lapsed because they
were not passed by the time of the 2009 general election. A new Bill was tabled in 2011, 17
but it became the subject of controversy and amendments for over two years. It eventually
became law in September 2013, 18 after being steered through parliament by Jairam Ramesh
when he became minister for rural development.
The legislation provided for substantial land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement
arrangements designed primarily to protect the poor who had previously lost out. Owners
were to receive four times the market value of their land in rural areas, and twice the value
in urban areas, so that they shared in future land values. Not less than 70 to 80 per cent of
the owners would have to give their consent for sales to go ahead during complex consulta-
tion arrangements. Land that had not been developed after ten years would be returned to
them. These provisions horrified industrialists who said that land costs would rise, and that
there would be long project delays and cancellations because of resistance from communit-
ies. It also seemed likely that companies would not go for developments that covered large
areas because of the problems involved in obtaining approval from numerous owners, and
that they might look for sites in rural areas in order to cut costs.
The arguments were polarized around the Indian economy's basic dilemma - how to en-
courage industrial and other projects that are needed for growth while at the same time
caring for the environment and for those whose lives are being uprooted. It is an argument