Land Acquisition Act and NRP (National Rehabilitation Policy): Legitimizing Forced Eviction
Issues of Land Acquisition in Manipur

Yenning *

Eviction of phumdi-huts by Loktak Development Authority (LDA) in February 23 2013 :: Pix - Hueiyen Lanpao

Using the rigid Sections of the Land Acquisition Act, Government of Manipur has been forcibly acquiring lands in the name of 'public purpose'. Manipur Government has been forcibly acquiring land right from expansion of road and airport to construction of Industrial growth centre, hydel power project, dam and expansion of trade centre, etc. The construction of Industrial Growth Centre at Waiton, Chingarel in Imphal East district, a scheme initiated in the Eighth Plan by the Government of India in 2008, concerns the acquisition of 519.843 acres of agricultural land affecting 339 pattadars. The commissioning of the Loktak Hydro Project at Komkeirap in year 1994 resulted in submersion of 27,404.94 acres of agricultural land in three districts of Manipur affecting around 12,129 pattadars (approximately).

In spite of the visible damages that have come forth with the commissioning of a hydro project, Government of Manipur still has not learnt a lesson. Development is still understood in terms of large projects at the cost of land, gene pool of bio-diversity and human beings. Proposed construction of a multipurpose project at Tipaimukh, which was granted notification in 2003, is likely to affect 15,000 hectares of land, affecting 168 villages and 30,000 villagers are going to be displaced, 300 sq. km of natural habitat likely to be destroyed and 60 km of NH 37 likely to be dislocated.

The expansion of trade at Moreh is a matter of concern as far as land acquisition and eviction is concerned. Starting from 1996, there has been land acquisition drive for the trade centre. First was the case of construction of Integrated Check Post at Moreh wherein the Assam Rifles took over the land on behalf of Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, by year 2012, the State Government has announced acquisition of 27 acres of land for construction of Special Economic Zone and has engaged Accenture, the American ICT company.

And, after the Prime Minister's visit to Myanmar, it has been reported that the State Government has already identified the areas which should be acquired for development and expansion of Moreh town. It remains to be seen how many will be affected by such drives. Now it appears that traumatic days are ahead for people settled along NH-2 (Imphal-Moreh road) for the State Cabinet recently adopted a resolution to expand the highway furthermore.

Two issues arise as a consequence of acquisition of land for 'public purpose'. On one hand is the immediate injury caused to the owners of the land, and second is the damaged caused in the aftermath of construction of development projects, both of which affect human security. The trend of development undertaken so far in Manipur at the cost of human security reinforces a classical example of Greek thinking and others, which embodies destruction is an inherent element of development.

In its classical origin, and not only in ancient Greece, development was understood as a natural process in which phases of renewal, expansion, contraction and decomposition followed each other sequentially according to a perpetually recurrent cycle. In the modern world, a world in which it is artifice rather than nature that provides the analogue for the understanding of movement, development has increasingly come to refer to a discontinuous process in which destruction and renewal are simultaneous, as much as sequential. However, the essential unity of creation and destruction contained within the process of development has not changed; it still involves destruction.

If land acquisition and eviction are necessary, what is more crucial is the rehabilitation part. Here it is pertinent to re-examine the National Rehabilitation Policy (NRP).

National Rehabilitation Policy

After almost two decades of threadbare discussions over various draft policies, the Government of India finally announced National Rehabilitation Policy (NRP) for Project Affected Families (PAF) in February 2004. The NRP was pushed forward in near secrecy without allowing little debate or discussion prior to its approval. But as several analysts, experts and human right groups pointed out, the NRP was more about legitimising displacement in the name of development projects than rehabilitating displaced people.

At the best, the NRP has provision for settlement or relocation but attempts no rehabilitation though it has been accepted world wide that displacement entails other traumatic psychological and socio-cultural negative impacts. Ultimately, the policy proved nothing more than a document to appease the guidelines laid down by various loan/aid-giving international financial institutions which would ultimately provide legitimacy to the Government's power to acquire land browbeating all opposition and resistance and hand it over to big multinational companies.

Interestingly, all these anti-people activities are done with a morally acceptable but misleading rhetoric of 'development' and 'public interest'. A deeper analysis would reveal that the NRP is not aimed at ensuring prompt relocation and resettlement or opening development opportunities to displaced persons or PAFs who have nothing to gain in the game of development but have to pay heavy price for it.

In reality, the NRP has a very restricted mandate and covers only development induced displacement in rural areas and has no provisions for disaster induced or conflict induced displacement. The whole vocabulary of the document is one of welfare and relief rather than of promoting rights of resettlement of PAFs, and create a situation for their empowerment and a better standard of living. Ironically, it fails to introduce provisions which would allow participation of displaced persons and civil society in the process of planning of the project, seeking non-displacing alternatives or in sharing intended benefits out of the project.

On the other hand, any resistance to the displacement was treated as a 'law and order' problem. Guided by such misplaced notion, the issue of rehabilitation and resettlement was never a priority with the power centres. Land was acquired by the draconian provisions of Land Acquisition Act 1894 of the colonial era and the same Act is still in practice with some amendments in 1967 and 1984. This Act has become a very convenient and effective weapon in the hand of independent Indian State for acquiring land from its citizens.

Here, we may recall Jawaharlal Nehru's remark on displacement caused by Hirakud Dam. In a speech to the displaced families, he stated in 1948, "If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the nation". The National Rehabilitation Policy, formulated decades later was not independent creation of the Indian State. Rather it was also a consequence of a conditionality of the World Bank or/and other multilateral financial institutions in order to facilitate the processes of corporate take over of the country's resources. The Government of India's refusal to discuss the report of the World Commission on Dams, Supreme Court judgement on the Narmada and the proposed interlinking of rivers are clear pointers that the NRP was not formulated with any genuine concern to rehabilitate displaced persons.

Displacement from one's habitual residence and the loss of property without fair compensation is a serious form of human rights violation. In addition to violating economic and social rights, arbitrary displacement can also lead to violations of civil and political rights, including arbitrary arrest, degrading treatment or punishment, temporary or permanent disenfranchisement and the loss of one's political voice.

Ironically, the NRP makes no attempt at addressing various rights violations which are common in these circumstances, specially that of vulnerable groups whole vulnerability increases manifold in these situations. It uses the word 'Right' in two instances, once to give cash compensation to tribals in lieu of loss of their customary rights over forest produce and secondly to grant fishing rights in the reservoir, in the case of large dams. This shows the true nature of NRP and the respect shown by the Government to fundamental rights of its citizens (Madhuresh Kumar 2005, Globalisation, State Policies and Sustainability of Rights).

Of late, Manipur has witnessed displacement caused by different factors such as construction of dams, expansion of highways and airport, laying of railway tracks, armed conflict, ethnic conflict etc. Though certain sections of these displaced people have been compensated with cash, we fear if any single displaced family has been rehabilitated or given land for resettlement. This is understandable given the content and spirit of the NRP. Again, the cry of the people displaced by the ethnic conflict of early 1990's for rehabilitation and justice would always get lost in the wind for there is no specific provision to address displacement caused by ethnic conflict.

Unfortunately, anti-dam lobby groups, resistance movements and the general public are either standing opposed to projects that entail displacement or are demanding compensation when they cannot resist the State's design. But very few people are asking for proper rehabilitation and resettlement. Sadly, this is the missing part in the people's movement against Government sponsored projects.

Perhaps civil society organisations and human rights groups are pre-occupied with the immediate concerns of defending human rights violation by both State armed forces and non-State actors. This is understandable given the prevailing situation in Manipur where all other issues are overshadowed by the armed conflict.

Nevertheless, deprivation of ancestral land, displacement and human rights violation entailed therein cannot be overlooked. It demands a sustained and well orchestrated collective struggle, specially for a small and vulnerable people like the Manipuri nation. As for the National Rehabilitation Policy, it is as good as dead.

Yet, it is interesting to learn that the Government of India, after 120 years, has finally decided to replace the Land Acquisition Act 1894 with the highly impressive Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. How fair and transparent the new legislation is will be known after January 1, 2014 the day it comes into force.