The dismal truth about development in India is that the much needed factories, dams, roads, railways and airports are often created at the expense of the poorest people in the country. They become development’s victims rather than its partners.
This process has become more intense in the past decade of heady growth. Almost every requirement of the growing economy — steel and power plants, highways, airports, and special economic zones (SEZs) — has led to often violent protests from those who feel they have much to lose and little to gain from it.
In almost all the cases the fight is over the land they will lose and the compensation they get. Villagers who lose valuable land to a highway, and get a pittance in return, or tribals in the forested regions of eastern India, who lose everything and are reduced to beggars scrounging on the margins of society, have every
reason to revolt.
In recent months, farmers or tribals dispossessed by the state in favour of powerful industrial interests, are fighting back, and, in many cases, winning. The most recent case is that of farmers in western Uttar Pradesh at the highway near Aligarh, who have refused to part with their land. They are crossing party lines to
oppose compensation rates that are less than one-tenth of market rates, especially in 25 sq km of the land for five “high-tech” cities around the proposed highway.
In other places as well, the land issue has come to a boil. In Niyamgiri in Orissa, Vedanta’s plans for mining bauxite faced growing opposition from the local tribals and last week it was squashed by the ministry of environment and forests.
Last year, Mukesh Ambani’s attempt to acquire 140 sq km of farmland from villagers in Raigarh near Mumbai was scuttled when villagers refused to sell him the land. Many of the 195 proposals for SEZs on 230 sq km of land, which are often no more than blatant land grabs, are also falling through because of opposition from local farmers.
Arcelor Mittal’s demand for 120 sq km of forest land in Jharkhand to set up a 12 million-tonne plant is also unlikely to go through. Mindful of the growing agitations against land acquisition, Tata Steel has scaled down its demand for land for a 12-million-tonne steel plant in Jharkhand from 40 sq km to 16 sq km.
If we have to grow richer, there is no getting away from massive investments in industry and infrastructure. The challenge is to spread the benefits and help people make the transition from an agrarian way of life to an industrial one in the least painful way.
Unfortunately, in the last 60 years, the tribal and scheduled caste poor have been the major victims of development, being
displaced by big projects.
Assocham has recently noted that at least 70% of the 190 delayed infrastructural projects have been stalled because of problems over land acquisition. The loss in time and escalating costs is substantial. While it says the government needs to ensure better remuneration, rehabilitation and resettlement to give a fair value for land acquisition, industry’s approach has been strangely myopic.
For instance, a steel plant with a 12-million-tonne capacity costs around Rs60,000 crore. Just 5% of this, or Rs3,000 crore, would be more than enough to give a decent Rs50 lakh an acre to those dispossessed, leaving enough money for training and equipping them for the industrial and post-industrial age.
Another example. A 12-million-tonne steel plant would produce around 33,000 tonnes of steel a day. Even if only one third of this is transported by truck, it would mean at least 1,000 trucks would leave the plant every day. Assuming a round trip of 10 days, some 10,000 trucks would be needed. They would give employment to at least 50,000 drivers and their assistants. If at least half of them are given to those who have lost their land, it would mean 25,000 well paying jobs, requiring no special skills, that would help the families of these forest dwellers make the transition to an industry-based service economy.
One noticeable detail is that much of the anger generated is when land is acquired at very low rates by the government for large industrial houses — Mukesh Ambani or Lakshmi Mittal or the Tatas or Anil Agarwal. These are really oligarchies that have an overarching influence on government decisions.
Last year the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in a study, India 2039: An affluent society in one generation, noted: “There is a risk that India will evolve towards a condition of oligarchic capitalism, in which the market and political power of major corporations will
become a drag on long-term growth”. It added that this model “is potentially disastrous, as it could bring into disrepute the entire system and launch a popular backlash that will be difficult to contain”. How true that sounds today.
Comments