The vision of a healthy world purged of the dross of corrupt, authoritative rule where human welfare is the supreme objective of political activity is the aim of philosophy and morals. In the context of presenting an enlightened interpretation of the humanist distress caused by development induced displacement, Sourav Banerjee charts the trajectory of an “unofficial” humanist, rational definition of development that encompasses a variety of human needs and choices.
With increasing urbanisation, rapid economic development, infrastructure requirements, prolonged armed conflict and ethnic or communal violence as well as natural calamities, each year millions of people in India are forcibly relocated and resettled away from their homes, lands and livelihoods. Displacement and loss of livelihood to make way for large-scale development projects such as dams, power plants, roads, urban renewal, and mining projects has become a recurring affair for people of India. In the past 60 years, development projects have displaced more than 60 million people in India, while the population of internally displaced persons (IDPs) worldwide swelled to over 260 million in the last 20 years. If seen critically, the reason lies behind such threat to livelihoods, lifestyles and identities is nothing but flawed development policies, which by excluding the most vulnerable from its beneficiaries create public dissent eventually leading to conflict and unrest.
Orissa, being the land highly rich in natural resources with hefty investments pouring in from across the world, and also home to a substantial tribal population prone to displacement and dispossession, is no exception, as the state has been grappling with this human problem since years, while the London listed mining corporation Vedanta, Korean steel giant POSCO and others are yet to find any meaningful solution despite spending billions, thus they have hit a roadblock in the state. So, finding a way out with striking a balance between need and greed, and providing mutual benefits, has become the need of the hour. The fears of losing land under unfair terms or the menace of displacement has become a subject of urgent attention.
The contention lies in the fact that the people whose personal, social, and environmental costs are compromised for the projects rarely share in the benefits. On the contrary, displacement commonly leads to the impoverishment of those who are forced to move, creating new poverty in project-affected areas. A multi-year study of development-induced displacement concluded that impoverishment and disempowerment “have been the rule rather than the exception with respect to resettled people around the world.” Experts identify eight impoverishment risks posed by displacement. These are: landlessness, homelessness, joblessness, significant deterioration in incomes and livelihoods, food insecurity, undernourishment and hunger, serious declines in health, increase in morbidity, stress and psychological trauma, a spiral of downward mobility leading to economic marginalisation often accompanied by social and cultural marginalization, and profound social disintegration.
If these are not enough, displaced people are found to be in an increased risk of suffering life-threatening diseases, epidemics, and loss of physical and mental health, yet they commonly have less access to hospitals and health clinics. Lack of access to educational facilities results in lost or delayed educational opportunities for children. Existing patterns of social organisation, relationships and subsistence are dismantled while kinship ties and other informal networks that provide mutual support are dispersed or unravelled precisely when the need for them is the greatest.
Coercion, threats or violence and egregious corruption are the major byproducts of displacement. The corporate cabal and respective national governments alike routinely fail to fairly compensate, resettle, and restore people’s livelihoods. Far too often, people attempting to claim their rights risk intimidation, degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest or detainment, violence and even torture from private or state security forces. Following relocation, people often face communal violence in resettlement areas where tensions between members of existing communities and new settlers are rampant.
It is the poorest and most vulnerable members of a community especially women, children, the elderly, and indigenous groups who has to pay the heaviest costs including impoverishment and disempowerment when forcibly displaced. The forced displacement of indigenous people violates Principle 9 of the UN’s Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement which stipulates that “States are under a particular obligation to protect against the displacement of indigenous peoples, minorities, peasants, pastoralists, and other groups with a special dependency on and attachment to the land.” For example, it is estimated that 40 per cent of all the people displaced by development projects during the first 40 years of India’s independence were tribal people. Orissa, being the land of various tribes and indigenous groups needs much care as it readies to have a massive economic and infrastructural overhaul in the coming years.
Let us urge our government to frame new rules and accountability systems that protect the rights of every person rendered homeless for the sake of development. We need to continue targeted advocacy efforts aimed at creating rights-respecting, responsible policies on isplacement and resettlement that promote the principles of avoiding displacement, accountability for decision-making and project outcomes, participation by all segments of affected populations in all phases of project design and implementation and transparency.
Development, politics and ethics
The only legislation pertaining to land acquisition currently in place is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“The Act”) which, though amended several times including the recent Land Bill amendment, retains its colonial flavour marked by granting an unfettered power to the government to grab land. The BJP led Central government has been trumpeting the new Land Bill that authorises the government to take away land without consulting the majority of its habitats and even environmental clearances, as poor and farmer friendly, but underneath lies the vicious intention to hand it over to the corporate giants with vested interests who elevated Modi to the coveted throne. It is time the legislators test it against the needs of the equal and just society of modern India. It is time to redefine ‘development’.
Displacement and dispossession is after all a human problem; be it man- or environment-driven. We are yet to gain control over nature’s fury so we cannot help save from its major devastating projects, but we can always mend the way we live, as it is very much in our control. We, of course, need development and at the same time we need to grow as human beings too. To us, human beings, lives are much costlier than SEZs, or dams, or IT Parks, or mining activities. Hence, displacement should be a major factor to be considered while doing a feasibility check of any development project. After all, we can only call development a development if it includes all who pay the price. The postcolonial Indian state has failed miserably to resolve the contradictions raised by Internal Displacement and virtually abdicated its responsibility towards its victims.
But let us bring an end to it. Let us urge our government to frame new rules and accountability systems that protect the rights of every person rendered homeless for the sake of development. We need to continue targeted advocacy efforts aimed at creating rights-respecting, responsible policies on displacement and resettlement that promote the principles of avoiding displacement, accountability for decision-making and project outcomes, participation by all segments of affected populations in all phases of project design and implementation and transparency. We also need to ensure that these policies are accompanied by strong systems and mechanisms for enforcement.
Paradoxically, forced displacement creates the very poverty that development purportedly seeks to eliminate. To avoid such fallout, the policy-makers and financial institutes should recognise the full impact and costs of development induced displacement, and include the risks and financial responsibilities related to displacement and resettlement up front in the project costs. In addition, the project framework should be structured to ensure that there is an ongoing revenue stream from the project to financially secure the project-affected people. So, the government should encourage a development model that does not unduly displace at the first place.
While aspiring for “development” it is important to understand what constitutes “development” itself. For a society to ensure true development and a sustainable growth it becomes imperative to address wealth distribution within it. Why should the poor be compelled to pay the price for the creation of the ‘global’ city? Can we not envisage a state that caters to the needs of all its citizens? For that we need “development” that benefits all. Projects that impose displacement must be designed to improve affected people’s standard of living and restore their livelihoods. If this be so, it is essential that the laws of a democratic country ensure that, for the growth of a few, the displaced persons are not made worse off. We need to work toward a world in which human connection to land, vibrant communities, healthy ecosystems, and democratic decision-making are not bulldozed as ‘obstacles’ to development, but rather are defended as the foundation for human health, justice, and sustainability.
(Excerpts from the research paper presented by the author at an international-level seminar, organised by Arvind Institute of Marxist Studies, Lucknow, in July 2011)
