landgrab & fabindia

7/29/2019 landgrab & fabindia

1/6

Convention on struggles against land grab and fabrication of false casesagainst activists(February 7-8, 2013 - Indian Social Institute, New Delhi)

Organised by: INSAF, FCFC (North) & others

Draft Background NoteIn a report presented to the Parliament in May 2012, it is observed that landacquisition by the State for the companies has "unleashed the tribal and ruralbacklash" creating need for new legislation.

The communities in the country and elsewhere in the world who are facing thecorporate onslaught constitute a community of fate. There is a dire need for them toexchange learnings from their ongoing struggles to strengthen each other and toensure that natural resources like land and materials embedded in it.

Land is a precious natural resource and is main source of livelihood in the Country.As per 'Economic Survey of India 2011' over 18 million rural families in India arelandless. The fact is that even the landless are dependent on land for their livelihood.Some 60 percent of the labour in the country is still engaged in agriculture and alliedoccupation.

The Central Government is grabbing lands using some 17 existing legislations forland acquisition. Besides this there are State legislations for the same. The collusionamong most of the national and regional political parties with industry bodies hasbecome quite stark.

The abnormal state of affairs in this regard has been underlined in the report of theParliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development presented to both thehouses of Parliament on May 17, 2012 in the matter of the Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Bill, 2011.

Since February 2, 1899, the land acquisition process has been carried out under theprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has been amended 17 times inpre-independent and post-independent India.

The Power of the sovereign to take private property for public use, also known as

Eminent Domain or 'Compulsory Purchase, and the consequent rights to the ownerfor compensation, are well established. The origins of the term Eminent Domainhas been traced to the legal treatise written by the Dutch jurist, Hugo Grotius in1625, using the term "dominiun eminens"(Latin for 'supreme lordship) anddescribed as: the property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, sothat the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy suchproperty, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private personshave a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utilitx, to which endsthose who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that privateends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is boundto make good the loss to those who lose their property.


2/6

Since early 19th century, the doctrine of Eminent Domain has been invoked in theform of land acquisition by the British East India Company and British Governmentwhen India was a dependency and Indian were subjects and not citizens.

The power of eminent domain was meant for subjects and not citizens. Oppositionto land acquisition for public purpose and "private purpose" by Central and StateGovernments for a perfect land market, unrestrained and blind urbanisation andforced industrialization is spreading like wildfire from 130 district out of 602 districtsto the rest of the districts in the country. In effect, the opposition of citizens is ademocratic challenge to the antiquated royal power of Eminent Domain meant forsubjects which the Central and State Governments are invoking.

The amendment made in 1962 permitted acquisition by the State for a Company"which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or workwhich is for a public purpose."

The amendments made in 1984 in blurred any differentiation between acquisition fora State purpose and acquisition for a private enterprise or State enterprise byamending section 4 of the original Act to insert the words or for a Company afterany public purpose.

As a consequence, the Courts have interpreted this amendment to mean that anynotification of acquisition issued under section 4 need not specify whether theacquisition is for a public purpose or for a Company.

Not surprisingly, instead of diluting the royal power of Eminent Domain which is acolonial legacy, the proposed legislation by the Central Government proposes to'extinguish the distinction in the original 1894 Act between acquisition by the State fora State purpose from purchase of land by a Company for a private purpose byincluding Public Private Partnership projects and private companies'.

It has been noted that India is perhaps the only country where the State acquiresland for profit-making private and PPP enterprises.

Parliamentary Committees report to the Parliament has revealed unequivocally theposition about land acquisition for private companies by the State in respect of few

countries. In the United States, "After the acquisition of land for private companiesbecame highly controversial, and several State Supreme Courts, including those ofOklahoma, South Carolina, Illinois and Michigan, placed bans on the acquisition ofland for private companies, the then President George W. Bush issued ExecutiveOrder No.13406 on 23 June 2006 mandating the Government to acquire land onlyfor the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose ofadvancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use ofthe property taken."

In Canada, "The Canadian Expropriation Act of 1985 allows expropriation but only onan exceptional case-by-case basis where the real right is required by the Crown


3/6

for a public work or other public purpose, but not to further the commercial interestsof a private company."

In European Union, "There is no provision in their laws for the acquisition by theState of land for private enterprises."

In Japan, "Even for a key infrastructural project that sought to expand Tokyos NaritaInternational Airport, the primary mode of obtaining land in the surrounding areaswas through extensive negotiations and higher compensation packages offered tothose who were willing to sell their land."

In Australia, "There is provision for land acquisition in the Northern Territories but thatis primarily aimed at protecting the interests of the local aborigines and theirtraditional rights to community ownership of land."

In China, "All land is owned by the State and, therefore, it is allotment by the State

rather than acquisition by the State which determines the purposes for, and entitiesto which, land is made available."

It is clear that in all developed democracies, private purchase of land, not Stateacquisition, is the norm. There is no provision in their laws for the State acquisition ofprivately held land for profit-making private enterprises, nor, by extension, for public-private enterprises.

On account of large scale acquisitions, the magnitude of the displaced people hasbeen highlighted by the Government of India appointed D. Bandyopadhyay headedExpert Group's Report on Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas,which was submitted to the Planning Commission in 2008.

The Report underlined, "Apart from poverty and deprivation in general, the causes ofthe tribal movements are many: the most important among them are absence of selfgovernance, forest policy, excise policy, land related issues, multifaceted forms ofexploitation, cultural humiliation and political marginalisation. Land alienation, forcedevictions from land, and displacement also added to unrest. Failure to implementprotective regulations in Scheduled Areas, absence of credit mechanism leading todependence on money lenders and consequent loss of land and often even violenceby the State functionaries added to the problem."

It further observed, "Land acquisition for Special Economic Zones (SEZ) has givenrise to widespread protest in various parts of the country. Large tracts of land arebeing acquired across the country for this purpose. Already, questions have beenraised on two counts. One is the loss of revenue in the form of taxes and the other isthe effect on agricultural production."

The report noted, "An official database of persons displaced / affected by projects isnot available. However, some unofficial studies, particularly by Dr. Walter Fernandes,peg this figure at around 60 million for the period from 1947 to 2004, involving 25million ha. which includes 7 million ha. of forest and 6 million ha. of other Common


4/6

Property Resources (CPR)*. Whereas the tribals constitute 8.08% of countryspopulation, they are 40% of the total displaced/affected persons by the projects.Similarly at least 20% of the displaced /affected are Dalits and another 20% areOBCs. The resettlement record is also very dismal. Only a third of the displacedpersons of planned development have been resettled."

These findings were presented to the Parliament in May 2012. Clearly, there is alogical compulsion for the "tribal and rural backlash" against land acquisition by theGovernments for the Companies of all ilk.

It has aptly been argued that since there is no question of the State acquisition oflabour or capital two of the three principal factors of production why should State beallowed to undertake acquisition of the third factor the land, the most precious andscarce of the three factors for production, for private enterprises, PPP enterprises oreven public enterprises?

Given the fact that land is a State subject and 'Acquisition' is under the Concurrentlist, both the Central and State Governments are responsible for the emergence ofcivil war like situation because so far they are reluctant to give up the anomalouspractice of acquiring land for private parties that has been given up even bycountries like USA, Japan, Canada etc.

Both the LARR Bill and the report of the Parliamentary Committee failed to takecognisance of the rampant land grab underway in Africa. There is no official statusreport in public domain with regard to these land acquisitions by Indian companies. Itis estimated that Indian companies have invested around $3 billion in Ethiopia,Kenya, Mozambique, Senegal and Madagascar to produce a wide variety of foodcrops and also crops that would be used to produce agrofuel. It is learnt thatGovernment of India is actively encouraging investments in land acquisitionprogrammes by providing cheap lines of credit to the governments of Ethiopia,Senegal, Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique.

Under globalization, the natural resources like land water and forests are beinglooted by the corporates in such a way that would not have been imagined even bythe British colonial forces. The neo-colonial loot has also established Indiansubsidiary interests, marginalizing a large section of the population. Many peoplesmovements have emerged in recent history, questioning the development policies of

the Central and State Governments. The peoples movement against POSCO (oneof the largest Foreign Direct Investment in India), is facing over 180 fabricated caseson over 1500 villagers and activists. Their leader, Abhay Sahoo who was jailed twiceduring the struggle is facing 51 fabricated cases today. Human rights and antidisplacement activist Seema Azad from UP was jailed for over 2 years, Adivasileader Dayamani Barla from Jharkhand was jailed for over 2 months, Farmers leaderDr. Sunilam is languishing in MP jail on life imprisonment charges, Environmentalactivist Jiten Yumnam was tortured and jailed for over 4 months in Manipur....the listgoes on endlessly!

Fabrication of cases on innocents have become a norm today for the institutions of


5/6

Indian State, violating all principles of human rights. But unfortunately, those whoseek freedom today through their struggles on the grave issues of globalization,destructive development, environmental justice, labour rights, womens rights,adivasi rights, self determination movements, dalit movements, farmers movements,fisher peoples movements, anti-nuclear movements, human rights movement and

many other such struggles find their space in these very jails where our ancestorsoccupied for one reason: Freedom!

There is a need to reach out to the struggle groups in these countries because theseare part of the same struggle. which is unfolding in India. This is of huge significancebecause leaders and activists of the struggle groups are facing strategic litigationagainst them in the form of fabricated cases. Such cases are a tool to silence publicinterest persons.

In such a backdrop, combined startegising is of immense importance to combat suchdesigns of the companies and colluding governments.

Presentations by:Adivasi Moolvasi Astitva Raksha Manch - Dayamani Barla (Jharkand)Posco Pratirodh Sangharsh Samiti - Abhay Sahoo & Prashant Paikray (Odisha)Kisan Sangharsh Samiti - Dr. Sunilam/ Adv. Aradhana Bharghav (Madhya Pradesh)Nadi Ghati Morcha - Gautam Bandopadhyay (Chhattisgarh)Anti MSEZ movement - Vidya Dinkar (Karnataka)Anti SEZ movement - K. Rajendra (Andhra Pradesh)Himalaya Nithi Abhiyan - Guman Singh (Himachal Pradesh)Akhil Gogoi, Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS), AssamCentre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur & Committee on the Protection ofNatural Resources in Manipur - Jiten Yumnam(Manipur)Antinuclear power project - Gorakhpur (Haryana), Jaitapur (Maharashtra), Kovvada(Andhra Pradesh).Krishi Bhumi Bachao Morcha - (Uttar Pradesh)NAPM Odisha - Prafulla SamataraCement Plant Virodhi Andolan - Capt. Deepsinh Sekhavat (Rajasthan)and others.


6/6

Convention on struggles against landgrab and fabrication of false casesagainst activists

February 7-8, 2013- Indian Social Institute, New Delhi

Organised by INSAF, FCFC (North) & Others.

Draft Schedule:

Feb. 7 (Friday)

10.00 am - 10.30 am : Introduction10.30 am - 01.00 pm : Prison Diaries - Activists out of jail on fabricated cases

Dr. Sunilam (tbc), Dayamani Barla, Seema Azad, Jiten Yunman,Akhil Gogoi, Abhay Sahoo - PPSS (tbc)Chair - Dr. Binayak Sen (tbc)followed by Open Session

01.00 pm - 02.30 pm : lunch02.30 pm - 04.00 pm : Court Diaries - Activists on bail in fabricated cases

K Rajendra, Prafulla Samantara,Chair -

04.00 pm - 05.30 pm : FIR & Repression diaries - Activists facing casesVaishali Patil, Vidya Dinker,Chair

Feb. 8 (Saturday)

10.00 am - 10.30 am : Videos10.30 am - 01.00 pm : Documenting fabrication - what to look out for? Ways forward.

Chair -followed by Open Session

01.00 pm - 02.30 pm : lunch02.30 pm - 04.00 pm : Moving ahead with collective strength

{Medha Patkar (NAPM), Ashok Chowdhury (NFFPFW), Ashim Roy(NTUI), Praful Bidwai (CNDP), PUDR, ...} (tbc)

Chair -

04.00 pm - 0.530 pm : OPEN SESSION: Operationalising - Countering fabricated caseson justice-defenders.

Moderator - Anil Chaudhary

Documents

landgrab & fabindia