The root cause of Maoist problem has been identified. But how do you address it?
There is a broad agreement on either side of the Maoist divide that the “root cause” of the trouble in the tribal heartland is lack of development. But for Mani Shankar Aiyar, who talks about implementing the Panchayats (Extension to the Schedule Areas) Act of 1996 (PESA), the development model being pursued in those areas continues to be more of the same--something that has only aggravated the situation as is evident in the rapid spread of the Maoist-held territory.
Just how flawed our development model for the tribal areas have been is evident from a letter that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) wrote to the Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh recently asking him to relax the “no-go” areas for coal mining. The letter went on to suggest that this was necessary for the "development" of the no-go areas as absence of such "development", meaning mining, would invite the Maoists! Mining remains one of the key factors for displacement and exploitation of the tribals, turning the tribal heartland into a breeding ground of the ultras. But it is shocking how this simple truth has escaped the PMO.
As for what should be the right model of development in the tribal areas we really don't need to look far. Over the years we have found the right solutions but don't implement them. That is our problem. Let me explain.
Few realize that the Fifth Schedule of the constitution (under which nine states have declared tribal dominated areas as “schedule areas” and six of which are Maoist-affected) gives a protective shield for the tribals by way of the Governor. The Governor can stop operation of any law or modify it before being applied in the "schedule areas" if he thinks that would adversely impact the tribals. No Governor has used this privilege ever. Had they, some of the laws like the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which made tribals encroachers of their homes in forests, would have never come to force in the scheduled areas! That would have saved millions of tribals from eviction and harassment at the hand of the forest officials and the trouble of having to struggle for the Forest Rights Act of 2006. And also, at least Gadchiroli of Maharashtra could have been saved from falling into the Maoist hands.
Who knows, gad the Governors been alive to their responsibility the fate of the Godavarman case of 1996, in which the Supreme Court widened the definition of the forest to include even the dictionary meaning of it and thus aggravating the tribals' woes, could have been different. Now, Law Minister Veerappa Moily blames this judgment for spreading the Maoist net (“unrealistic judicial activism on the part of the judges is one of the main reasons for increased Naxalism in the country”, he has been telling the newspapers).
Similarly, there are a few other laws that need to be implemented, like the PESA and the Forest Rights Act of 2006, to grant the tribals their rights over the minor forest produce, which excludes timber but includes everything else—bamboo, tendu leaves, chironji, amla, mahua, honey and so on. These forest produce sustain them for better part of the year. The laws provide that the tribals are the owners of the minor forest produce. But not a single state government has so far given that right to the tribals. They merely get wages to pluck tendu leaves, for example, which is theirs. The bamboos too are their property but the paper mills of the country are the ones who get the leases. This is not surprising since, as the Planning Commission has now pointed out, these minor forest produces are worth Rs 50,000 crore! Imagine what such a sum will do to the tribals life if they get what is rightfully theirs.
Bastar fell to the Maoists in 80s because they demanded better price for tendu leaves on behalf of the tribals. Ironically, when in 2005, the Maoists organized a strike and prevented the trade in the tendu leaves, ostensibly to extract a better price, it sparked anti-Maoist Salwa Judum movement in the region.
PESA goes much beyond this. It gives the tribals the right over their land (including the right to identify and restore land alienation), minor minerals, right to protect their environment, decide development work in their area and protect their way of life, including traditional judicial system. This is a part of the autonomy and local self-governance that was envisaged in the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments.
Laws also provide that the tribals are consulted for all mining and industrialization activities in their areas before land is acquired and environment clearance is given. But this is not so in practice. In the case of the Vedanta’s bauxite project in Orissa’s Niyamgiri hills, the Dongaria Kondhs, a primitive tribe that would be directly affected, were not told about the project or the findings of the the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) studies. Most of the tribals did not know the impact nor the purpose of the meeting that forwarded their consent for the project and land acquisition.
Similarly, in the case of POSCO's steel plant project in Orissa, the district officials merely constituted “forest committees” and passed on the proceedings as an agreement by the villagers to land acquisition. Based on that, the MoEF gave final clearance to the project (regarding diversion of 1253 hectares of forest land) in December 2009. It was only in May 2010 that the truth was discovered when someone read the state government’s reports in Oriya. The MoEF put its clearance on hold, stating that certain conditions like “consent” of the tribals were needed.
There is a well-known apex court judgment, known as the Samtha Case of 1997, which said in the scheduled areas mining can be done only by a “state instrumentality” or the “tribal cooperatives” to ensure that the tribals are not exploited by the private companies. Andhra and Orissa governments circumvent this by granting mining leases to the APMC and OMDC, their mining corporations which then either sub-lease or form joint ventures with private corporates who actually carry out the operations. This is true of the proposed mining of the Niyamgiri and several others in Andhra Pradesh.
Illegal mining is another area of concern. All the mining scams to have hit the headlines recently--be it the Reddy brothers of Bellary, the Orissa mining scam or the Madhu Khoda mining scam--show the extent of the malaise to be very widespread. There is no scope for rehabilitation or compensation for the tribals in such cases. Our Environment and Forests Minister is reduced to issuing appeals to the Chief Ministers to stop illegal mining. But this is easier said than done.
Apart from implementing the law of the land, the government can make a few changes in the existing law.
The most important one of these is to amend the antiquated Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which doesn’t recognize the right to be compensated or rehabilitated or be consulted before land is acquired. According to a 2008 report by the Rural Development Ministry, 40 million people have lost their land since 1950 “on account of displacement due to large development projects”, of which 40 percent of them are tribals who still “await compensation and rehabilitation”.
Sometimes, land acquired for public purpose is misused. For example, parts of land acquired for the Sardar Sarovar Project at Kevadia in central Gujarat was sought to be given to private corporate bodies to develop 5-star hotels and golf courses a few years ago. The Kevadia villagers who lost their land are still fighting a legal battle for their rehabilitation, for which they are not even considered eligible. Finally, it was a public outcry which stopped the state government from going ahead with the plan. The Forest Rights Act provides for "consent" of the tribals before their land can be acquired but this is bypassed and the Land Acquisition Act is brought into force for the purpose. This is a gross violation of law and has to be stopped.
A National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy was adopted in 2007 with a view to provide for a greater say of the people whose land is being acquired. But it is yet to be given the legal teeth. But before that some changes are required. These include, providing that the land can be acquired “rarely” and after “full justification” for the project; replacing “consultation” with people losing their land with their “consent”; providing land and job to the people losing their land, instead of using vague words like “if land is available” and “as far as possible” etc; lowering limits for applicability of the policy only if a project entails 400 people in plains and 200 families in hilly terrain and ensuring that the land acquired can’t be used for purpose other than “public purpose”.
Making the tribals partners in development is an idea whose time has come. A beginning has been made by proposing a 26 percent share to such people in the new Mining and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Bill of 2010. Haryana adopted a land acquisition policy in 2007 that provides for an annual income of Rs 15,000 for the next 33 years “over and above the usual land compensation”. These elements can be easily incorporated in other sectors and elsewhere in the country. Such a change would make tribals less hostile to development projects.
The tribals can also be made partners in development by promoting their cooperatives as the Samatha judgement proposed.
The MoEF may add its bit by discarding its bizarre policy of granting “in principle” clearance to mining and other projects that require forest land, before a “final clearance” is given. The gap between the two clearance sometime takes years and provides a window for misuse as those having the "in principle" clearance then proceed to build their industrial units and start mining. There have been several instances when the MoEF officials themselves have asked the state governments to allow such activities while the "final clearance" is pending. Recently, the Jindal Power Limited was stopped mid-way from constructing a 2400 MW poweer plant in Chhattisgarh after an environment activists blew the whistled. It was then discovered that not only did the company not have environment clearance, it didn't even had got the land lease! But mostly, such things are never detected or stopped and then the projects are handed out as “fair accompli” when legality of such projects are challenged in the court of law.
The simple thing to do is to stop giving "in principle" clearance. The clearance has to be given only once and after the procedural requirements--like environment impact assessment, consent of the affected tribals, completion of rehabilitation and resettlement, forest clearance etc-- are completed!
While giving clearance, nobody bothers to find out how a project will affect the community which is being uprooted from its natural habitation like the tribals. Especially, how will affect their social life as their life style and survival is dependent on the environment. Thus, a social impact assessment should be made mandatory before clearing any project.
It makes immense sense to take a holistic view of the project in the tribal areas, that dramatically changes the environment and life, to ensure that the damage to the environment and people are minimum and find ways and means to minimise the impact.
Land reform is another long pending issue that needs attention. Its importance can never be over-stated. If West Bengal remained free of the Maoists until now in spite of the fact that the Naxalbari uprising happened there way back in 1969, the credit goes to the subsequent land reforms. And the first demand of the Maoists when they held peace talks with the Andhra Pradesh government in 2004, was distribution of surplus land to the landless and tribals.
It was land grabbing that sparked the Telangana revolt of 1945-51, the first Maoist revolutionary action. It returned to Andhra in the form of the People’s War Group in 80s because of the same reason. The case is no different in many of the tribal districts of Orissa.
The last but not the least, the government must review all the secret MoUs that have been signed by the governments of Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Jharkhand in the past few years. Last counted, Orissa had signed 44 and Chhattisgarh 115 MoUs since 2002. Not for nothing that the Red Corridor is also the MoU Corridor of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment