Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2010 > Developmental State and People’s Struggle for Land Rights

Mainstream, Vol XLVIII, No 29, July 10, 2010

Developmental State and People’s Struggle for Land Rights

Friday 16 July 2010, by Suranjita Ray

#socialtags

On May 15, 2010 the police fired rubber bullets and tear gas shells and lathicharged hundreds of villagers staging a dharna on the road at Balitutha in Jagatsinghpur district of Orissa to clear all hurdles against land acquisition and allotment of mines to Posco at the earliest as committed by the government.1 To help the administration acquire land for the steel project—Posco—police mercilessly beat up the villagers injuring more than 100 including many women from Dhinkia and nearby villages, (The Hindu, May 16, 2010: 8) They burnt down the temporary structure under which the demonstrators were sitting on dharna for the last four months protesting land acquisition. A large posse of armed policemen is camping in the area and the villagers, who refused to hand over their land, apprehend further police action against them. The South Korean company’s move to have a captive port is opposed as it would adversely affect Paradeep Port. The protesters also object to its plan for captive iron ore mines instead of purchasing ore from the Orissa Mining Corporation. The proposal to draw water from Mahanadi Barrage would affect the irrigation system and lead to ecological degradation. (Das, 2010:8) The Centre as well as State Government has ignored the issues raised by the anti-Posco protesters (Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti). Though the district authorities earlier termed the blockade illegal and clamped Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the area (prohibiting the assembly of five or more people), the government held no formal dialogue with the agitating villagers before using the police to remove the road blockade.

This reflects the true character of a repressive state which has been successful in suppressing the people’s voice against violation of rights and denial of justice. The beginning of the 21st century witnessed an increasing social turmoil in the troubled regions, and many such oppressive actions by the state against peaceful protests. Therefore I deliberately chose to contextualise the development strategy of the state in the ongoing struggle of adivasis and Dalits for land rights.

The growing paradox of development makes it hard to explain the pattern of discrimination and undermining of citizens. It is undisputable that over the years the intensity of deprivation, oppression and exploitation of the under-privileged has increased amidst high economic growth rate (averaged around seven per cent since 1997).2 This has raised critical questions about the development strategies and policies adopted by the state. During the last two decades, the most critical of the challenges has come from the people’s protests, movements, forums, organisations, groups and individual activists addressing issues which are vital for sustenance of livelihood of the marginalised and deprived.

Therefore I make a departure from the conventional understanding of development by looking at it from the vantage point of the underdeveloped communities and powerless citizens in many interior regions, rather than only the human development indices that are determined by the state and non-state institutions. However, today researching on the adivasis and their lives is looked at with suspicion as supporters of Maoists/ Naxals/ anti-development/anti-national. Do I have to be pro-or anti-Maoist to address with adequate depth and breadth, the underlying cause of deprivation and inequalities experienced by the tribals/adivasis? Policy debates should move beyond the narrowly defined ‘opposites’ (pro vs anti/ for or against) and deal with the challenges that confront development and its implication on the citizens. (Also see Dreze and Sen, 2002:32-33) The democratic state should intervene to protect the rights of its citizens and prevent deprivation.

Understanding Development

WHILE the focus of measuring development has shifted from production-centred and high economic growth rate alone, to distribution of the growth, and the state has taken measures of ‘protective discrimination’ to reserve benefits for certain unequal citizens, several studies have proved that the development policies have not benefited the majority of people in the interior regions. An attempt to restructure policies to achieve a new vision of growth (inclusive growth) has been made so that the majority share in the benefits of growth which is a critical input that determines the growth potential in the long run.3 However, the bigger question is: how far down the ladder do benefits based on the needs of the deprived and disadvantaged trickle down?

The widespread socio-economic, cultural and political inequalities and disparities make the constitutional right to exercise freedom conditional. Freedom is not just social, economic, cultural and political freedom but also freedom of the poor and powerless to exercise the above freedoms. Amartya Sen argues for the need to focus on freedom as vital to development.4 In practice, the ‘freedom to exercise freedom’ is denied to the vast majority of society who are underprivileged and discriminated against.

Thus, it is critical to understand that (1) unequal conditions are not a given in any society but are created so that the powerful are privileged to take advantage of the opportunity and benefit from development; (2) while there is enough evidence that the benefits do not reach the target groups, we need to look at citizens beyond passive recipients of benefits of policies; (3) if development means empowering citizens to exercise their freedom, has the democratic state provided space to the vast majority to have a say in deciding the policies designed to benefit them?5 (4) can the state in nexus with the powerful elite (corporate sector) decide what is development and force it on the powerless, deprived and marginalised? (5) has the state addressed the structural cause of deprivation and attempted to change the power relations in society? and (6) failure to secure basic needs to its citizens not only illustrates failure of democracy but also undermines equal citizenship.

Strengthening ‘participatory democracy’ by decentralising and fragmenting the power structure does not involve the local people at the grassroots to decide development policies. The panchayats are manipulated by men of the dominant land owning class and upper caste who have an enormous hold on the socio-economic and political structures despite reserving seats for the STs, SCs and women after the 73rd Amendment.6 An effective functioning of democracy requires good democratic practice in addition to democratic institutions.7 Therefore, it is important to capture the complexity of power relations in a particular context of a society to understand the cumulative deprivation, exploitation, oppression, suppression, humiliation and denial of justice to the powerless.

Development policies have not only failed to benefit the marginalised and deprived sections in rural areas, but have also increasingly threatened their sources of livelihood. The state has handed over vast areas of natural resources such as mining, fertile land, water and forest reserves to the corporate sector and international finance capital to secure industrial and economic growth. The state’s new mantra to ensure development by handing over the productive resources to the national, transnational and multinational corporations is based on the underlying philosophy of economic liberalisation and globalisation of trade (which has seen the shift from a ‘welfare state’ to a ‘Developmental State’). The increasing race by the corporate world to control the natural resources has gained support on many grounds—(1) the utilitarian argument that untapped resources can be potentially utilised for an increased production, economic growth and development that will benefit majority of the citizens of this country,8 (2) these interior regions are backward and need to develop as they lag behind all measures of development, (3) there is no law which respects the customary rights of the adivasis over the natural resources, which is their source of liveli-hood,9 (4) the industrial companies/ entre-preneurial projects claim that there will be no destruction of perennial streams, waterfalls, forests, agricultural lands in the mining lease areas, (5) there will be no displacement due to industries/mining/dams/Special Economic Zones (SEZs), and if, there is any, the displaced will be paid compensation under the policy of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R),10 and (6) that for the benefit of larger society /public interest, sections of its citizens can be asked by the state to sacrifice some of their rights.11

However, the history of economic development of India in general and the big development projects in particular has resulted in denying the local people access and control over the resources, which is vital for the sustenance of their livelihood. The development of a few advantaged, powerful and privileged has led to the underdevelopment of the majority who are disadvantaged, powerless and underprivileged. Increasing deprivation and displacement of the latter has led to violation of human rights and denial of justice.12 Thus, “in many ways, the history of ‘development’ projects in many parts of the Indian Republic are illustrative of the ways in which the doctrine of ‘eminent domain’ had caused havoc and displacement in the lives of many of the poorest citizens living at subsistence levels”. (Binayak Sen: 2010)13

The denial of basic needs has brought the adivasis directly in confrontation with the state. There has been a persistent clash between the local interest as well as the national interest on the issue of exploitation of natural resources. (Also see Sachchidananda, 1989: 297) This has seen history of social movements—the Chipko Movement (which combined the forest rights of the people with the environmental issue) was to protect trees from commercial felling, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA—which raised the critical issue of loss of livelihood and the ecological threat) opposed the big dams, and the people’s struggle for land rights-protests/movements by small and marginal farmers, landless, adivasis and Dalits to protect the fertile land, water, forest reserves and mineral resources from unprecedented land grab and land acquisition in the name of development across the country.14

People’s Protest: A Success/Crisis of Democracy

DURING the 1970s Naxalites built up pockets of agrarian struggle in the tribal areas which were suppressed by the paramilitary forces, but the last decade has seen the Maoist/Naxal rebels gradually expanding their influence in around 165 districts (at present) forming a ‘red corridor’ (stretching from the southern tip of India to the eastern half and up to Nepal).15 Today Maoists hold sway over vast tracts of the countryside in the east, south and centre. The merger of the People’s War Group (PWG) and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) in September 2004 led to the formation of a new united outfit called the Communist Party of India (Maoist). The CPI (Maoist) believes in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as its ideology and aims to consolidate power in these revolu-tionary zones. The Maoists denounce globalisation as ‘a war on the people by market fundamentalists’ and the ‘caste system’ as a form of social oppression. They claim to fight for the rights of poor peasants and landless agricultural labourers against the big development projects. They aim at establishing a “people’s government” through the New Democratic Revolution which is the people’s war. However, their ideology is also committed to “protracted armed struggle” to undermine the state and to seize power from it.16 It also ‘supports the struggle of the sub-nationalities for self determination, including the right to secession’.

While the adivasis feel strongly about opposing the development projects which will lead to dispossession and losing their sources of livelihood, displacement,17 ecological degradation and result in further deprivation, they oppose the strategy of violence adopted by the Maoists/ Naxals. Therefore to label every adivasi who critiques the ‘Developmental State’ as a Naxalite/Maoist or a Naxal/Maoist sympathiser and defending violence against them as a counter-measure is not only undemocratic but also demeaning democracy.

The Centre as well as the States have initiated counter-insurgency operations in the Maoist/Naxal affected areas—Salwa Judum, Operation Green Hunt, Greyhounds, Special Police Officers, Paramilitary Forces (CRPF) and Special Task Forces.18 During the past several paramilitary and police forces have been killed in blasts triggered by the Maoists in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Bihar. The Maoists have been attacking the tribals and civilians who they feel are assisting the police. They are constantly terrorising villagers to support them against the state.19 This kind of a situation which defends use of violence is likely to lead to a civil war.20

This calls for an urgency to resolve the conflict as the most fundamental and crucial issue of structural deprivation is lost in the ongoing gun-battle in the remotest areas (referred to as red corridors/war zones). While the state has failed to protect the right to livelihood of the underprivileged, it has favoured the corporate world to secure their commercial interest at the cost of denying justice to the vast majority of the local people inhabiting these regions. The day-to-day battle of the adivasis and Dalits (marginal/ small farmers/ landless) to survive also highlights the failure of one of the state’s foundational principles—to ensure minimum sustenance to its people. A government which repeatedly fails to accomplish its stated goals is one which fails to govern. (See also Kohli, 1991:23) As a result the local people (who are displaced or lose access to and control over the resources) have lost faith in the state as well as the local administration and protest outside the institutions of democracy. Though the people’s protest, particularly from the powerless of the backward regions, illustrates the success of a democratic society, the latter has always led to crisis in governance. In fact conflict management of the state is compounded as the conflict is not from the dominant proprietory coalition, but also includes turmoil from below.21 (Bardhan, 1984:82)

The opposition to the development projects has brought the development debate to the fore in the public agenda. By incorporating questions of rights and social justice the protesters have brought a fundamental issue to the core of the national as well as international agenda on development. The legitimacy of the democratic state is thus challenged as it (1) has failed to secure the basic needs to its citizens, (2) denies participation of citizens in the decisions that directly affect their lives, and (3) has also failed to respond positively to the people’s protests.

Response of the State: Repressive/Liberal

THE state’s counter-insurgency operations against the Maoists/Naxals/ Left-wing Extremism has resulted in repeated violation of civil liberties and democratic rights, arrests of activists and repeated detentions, violation of preventive detention laws and abuses of human rights in custody.22 The police, paramilitary forces and state-sponsored militia—Salwa Judum, Operation Green Hunt and Special Police Officers—have inflicted torture, brutality and killings of the adivasi communities in the pretext of cleansing the area of the Maoists and Naxals.23 The ongoing violence and counter-violence has further increased insecurity of the life of the innocent citizens who are victims of violence either by the Maoists or by the state. The atrocities by the police and Special Police Officers (SPOs), which have been documented by the human rights and social activists, reflect the cruelty and brutality of the repressive state.24

Innocent adivasis from all the States where combing operations are in active progress have been tortured, many interrogated and detained illegally, kidnapped by police and taken to their camps, accused of being Naxalites/ suspected of being Naxal-funded and forced to become SPOs (Special Police Officers), many jailed, many killed/ brutally/mysteriously murdered, their houses and properties destroyed, women raped, young boys beaten up and accused of being criminals, terrorised and attacked. Schools in these areas have become targets of Maoist attacks as they billet paramilitary and police forces as commanded by the state. Both the Maoists and police who resort to violence have made life difficult for the tribals.25 Without education and health services, and now denial of the customary rights to the productive resources, the adivasis have been deprived further. They fear going to the forest to collect the minor forest produce on which they survive. They have stopped going to the local hospitals. Many have fled away their homes and villages. The state has done little to promote social opportunities in terms of elementary education, basic health care and social security. The rights that the ‘Developmental State’ promises are meaningless for the adivasis in the war zones where constant terrorising and threatening to their life has become an everyday experience.

Therefore the single most important task before the state is to address the issues raised by such protests, to engage in debate and dialogue /negotiation with the people at the grassroots and to resolve the conflicts in the interest of the people’s rights. However, the government claims that despite the peace offers and repeated asking to the Maoists over the last few months to abjure violence and come forward for talks, the latter have only increased their level of violence. Among other things, to start any talks, they demand ‘lifting of the ban on their outfit, a ceasefire from security forces and the release of their cadres from jails’. The government states that it has made it clear ‘that there should not be any pre-conditions attached to starting talks other than abjuring violence’.26 While the Maoists had also indicated that ‘they are willing to have simultaneous ceasefire’ (Raja, 2010: 5, see also The Hindu, April 14, 2010), in response to the offer to hold talks by the Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, the Naxal leader, Ramanna, said: “We cannot give up our weapons.” He further said that when they had responded to the Home Minister’s earlier offer on talks, the government had not believed them and instead presence of heavy security forces and their atrocities are continuing every day. (The Hindu, May 19, 2010: 12)27 Can violence practised by the security forces in the name of combating Naxals/ Maoists be justified?

Thus the state should rethink its strategies of development in order to protect the rights and needs of the deprived and marginalised. As long as the key to development lies in big development projects regardless of their social and economic consequences, there will be violation of rights and denial of justice. The deprived and marginalised will protest the ‘Developmental State’ and the Maoists/ Naxals will make use of the situation resulting in increasing violence. Can the dissenting voices and protests be suppressed by repression, arrests, harassment, lathicharge, police brutality and killings? One can see that ‘as the development claims of the state are challenged by protests its repressive violent face has become increasingly manifest’. (Jayal, 1990: 205)

Can Counter-insurgency Resolve Conflicts?

CRITICISMS of the counter-insurgency operations are often branded as anti-national. This has led to an increasing tolerance for the infringement of human rights. The enormous mobilisation that the government is organising to counter the impact of the social activists in protecting the interests of the corporate sector against the adivasis only reinforces how democracy works at the ground. The state has always been successful in evading its commitment to justice by repressing revolt and suppressing local opposition. The conflict around the big development projects has not only seen protests against them but also an equal number of supporters of the projects being organised as counter-mobilisations to illustrate that the state policies are based on public interest. If the government succeeds in gathering more support than opposition, by dividing the poor against the poor, democracy will once again undermine equal citizenship by privileging majoritarianism and disrespecting the voice of the deprived and unequal. Democracy is not about majority rule but about democratic rights which also includes protecting the rights of the powerless. ‘The state may be weak in relation to powerful social groups but it is strong and repressive in relation to the powerless.’ (Jayal, 1999:19) Unless the state respects the rights of the marginalised, the Maoists would continue to revolutionise the whole issue without considering the loss of innocent lives.

In a democracy the possibility to influence the agenda of development of the government by opposing or critiquing its policies exists and the government needs to examine the priorities of public criticism. (See also Dreze and Sen, 2002: xv)28 If the deprived and excluded have to be brought to the mainstream polity, economy and society it is pertinent to address issues relating to land, livelihood and displacement, exploitation of mineral resources, forest and water reserves, increasing farmers’ suicides, unemployment, poor health care, lack of education, hunger, malnutrition, famishment and starvation deaths, distress migration and the very right of the communities to life and existence.

Despite the focus on ‘development with a human face’, the rights-based approach of the state has failed to take the moral responsibility of securing the basic rights and needs to its citizens. But as no democratic state can survive without securing the latter, it is important to hear the voice of people’s protests and the issues raised by them need to be debated further for a secured and protected life of the citizens, which legitimises a democratic state. In fact, ‘the state is subject to contestation not as an empirical entity but also as a conceptual and symbolic one.’ (Jayal, 1999: 11)

The challenge facing India’s democracy is to resolve the conflicts over rights to access and control productive resources. These protests demand participatory democracy where the needs and demands of the local people are taken into account and they are consulted when their lives are affected by the development projects. ‘Development in tribal areas is not only about building roads and buildings but also about the operationalisation of equity, social justice and people’s sovereignty. While everyone talks of peace, genuine peace cannot mean acquiescence in an exploitative and unjust social order, but rather it should be the result of a movement for equity and social justice.’ (Binayak Sen: 2010)

Conclusion

DEVELOPMENT projects have mounted protests on questions of survival, displacement, alienation and right to life and livelihood. Can the democratic state by strengthening formal, institutional and procedural democracy legitimise itself, even when ‘democratic rights’—one of its fundamental principles—are violated? Why should India’s development strategy contradict its moral responsibility to secure rights, freedom, equality and justice? If development is to enhance freedom and justice then the needs of the local communities and the powerless deprived citizens should be prioritised rather than the techno-managerial development projects designed from above. The strategy of development should protect the basic needs, ecological sustainability and socio-economic justice. Development should lead to empower-ment. This is possible when access and control over land, forest, water and other productive resources, access to education, health, social security and safety are ensured to the marginalised and excluded.

Therefore, it is important for the state to initiate dialogue with the local people and stop forcible acquisition of land and demolition of houses. Has the state seriously addressed the basic issue of conflict and structural deprivation, let alone attempted to resolve it? Despite acknowledging that Maoism/Naxalism is not simply a law and order problem, but has deep socio-economic dimensions and is motivated by prevailing socio-economic deprivations (The Annual Report of the Ministry of Home Affairs, 2005-06), the underlying causes of deprivation have not been addressed by the state.

The state is ill at ease with questions of structural inequalities and deprivation, and is politically safe by waging a war against the Maoists/Naxalites and building a lobby to defend its development policies. If the state succeeds in converting the so-called red corridor into a corporate corridor, an increased production and economic growth might be secured but this will be at the cost of right to livelihood of the adivasis. The latter will confront the state and the Maoists/Naxals will misuse such a situation. Therefore, resolving the conflict between the people’s struggle for land rights and the ‘Developmental State’ is possible only if the local people’s perspective on development is acknowledged and the state rethinks its strategies of development.29 The objective which every policy-maker and implementer should attempt is to bring about structural changes, which will change the hierarchical power relations that give rise to the oppressive conditions. The wider connotation and broader meaning attached to development should include creating conditions so that the basic needs and the right to livelihood is ensured to the least advantaged sections of society. I express solidarity towards the adivasis fighting for justice. 
[I thank N. Sukumar (Department of Political Science, University of Delhi) for sharing his views, comments and suggestions—S.R.]

REFERENCES

Bardhan, Pranab (1984), The Political Economy of Development in India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Burman, B.K. Roy (1994), Indigenous and Tribal Peoples-Gathering Mist and New Horizon, Mittal Publication, New Delhi.

Business Daily (Bureau), The Hindu Group of Publications, January 26, 2010.

Das, Prafulla (2010), “100 Injured in Police Action at Posco Site” in The Hindu, May 16, pg. 8.

Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (2002), India Development and Participation, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Human Development Report (2002-2003), UNDP, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Jayal, Nirja Gopal (1999), Democracy and the State: Welfare Secularism and Development in Contemporary India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Kohli, Atul (1991), Democracy and Discontent: India’s Growing Crisis of Governability, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Macpherson, C.B. (1966), The Real World of Democracy, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Mohanty, Manoranjan (1995), “On the Concept of Empowerment”, Indian
Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 4, Sage Publication, New Delhi.

—————(1989), “Class, Caste and Dominance in Orissa” in Dominance and
State Power in Modern India Decline of a Social Order Vol. II, Francine R. Frankel and M.S. Rao (eds.), Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford.

Nussbaum, Martha C. (2006), “Poverty and Human Functioning” in Poverty and Inequality, David B. Grusky and Ravi Kanbur (eds.), Standford University Press, Standford, California.

Raja, D. (2010), “Protect Tribal People, Rework Strategy to Tackle Maoism” in Mainstream, Vol. XLVIII, No 18, April 24, 2010.

Sachchidananda (1989), “Patterns of Politico-Ecomomic Change Among Tribals in Middle India” in Dominance and State Power in Modern India Decline of a Social Order
Vol-II, Francine R. Frankel and M.S. Rao, (eds.), Oxford University Press, Walton Street Oxford.

Sen, Amartya (1999), Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sen, Amartya (2006), “Conceptualising and Measuring Poverty” in Poverty and Inequality, David B. Grusky and Ravi Kanbur (eds.), Standford University Press, Standford, California.

Sen, Binayek (2010), The Hindu: May 4, pg. 11.

The Independent People’s Tribunal, April 9-11, 2010, at the Constitution Club, New Delhi recorded testimonies of the victims of Maoist affected areas (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Orissa) where counter-insurgency operations are conducted.

The Hindu, May 7, 2010: pg. 1.

The Hindu, May 9, 2010: pg. 9.

The Hindu, May 16, 2010: pg. 7.

The Hindu, May 17, 2010: pgs. 1 and 5.

The Hindu, May 18, 2010: pg. 1.

The Hindu, May 19, 2010: pg. 12.

The Hindu, May 20, 2010: pg. 1.

The Hindu, May 21, 2010: pg. 14.

Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, (2006)

Weiner, Myron (1983), “The Wounded Tiger: Maintaining India’s Democratic Institutions” in Peter Lyon and James Manor (eds.), Transfer and Transformation: Political Institutions in the New Common Wealth, Leicester University Press, Leicester.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Minister of Steel, Virbhadra Singh, at the meeting with a team of Posco officials led by its Chairman and Global Head Mr Joon-Yang Chung on January 25, 2010, said: “I see the entire matter signed, sealed and delivered to Posco in the next four to five months, including physical transfer of land and other regulatory issues...... Posco’s project has already received the environmental and forest clearances as well as the Costal Regulation Zone clearance.....The Union Government is keen to resolve the land acquisition and regulatory hurdles for Posco’s Rs 54,000 crore project in Orissa,.....Mines have also been allotted to Posco but some claimants including a PSU have moved the Orissa High Court against the allotment of mines to Posco.” He added that the Centre would request the High Court to dispose of the case expeditiously and the litigant PSU would also be persuaded to withdraw the case.....regarding land acquisition issues for Posco in Orissa, rehabilitation and compensation to land owners must be done in a way to keep the land owners happy......we have suggested a methodology of annuity to be given to the land owners so that their sentiments of land ownership are not lost.” Posco is also in talks with Maharashtra and Karnataka to set up steel plants, according to the Minister. [Business Daily (Bureau), The Hindu group of publications, January 26, 2010]

2. Dreze and Sen argue that “high economic growth in the nineties has co-existed with continuation and some-times even intensification of deep social failures……In fact, in some important respects the progress of social indicators has been rather slower in the 1990s than in the 1980s. As India enters the twentyfirst century, the lives of a majority of its citizens continue to be blighted by endemic poverty, under-nutrition, ill-health, educational deprivation, environmental degradation and wide-ranging social inequalities.” (Dreze and Sen, 2002: vi) They put particular importance on achieving equitable and participatory growth, in contrast to the divisive patterns that prevailed. (Ibid.)

3. The focus of the 11th Plan is on the need to restructure the policies to make it broad-based and inclusive in order to bridge the divides between the rich and the poor, rural and urban, upper class, caste and the SCs, STs, OBCs, marginalised sections, regional disparities and gender divisions that have become more sharpened than in the past. It further states that there is a need for a self-critical look at the programmes and the focus should be on the outcomes rather than outlays by building on our strengths and countering the weaknesses. (Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to 11th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission, Government of India, 2006)

4. ‘If we see development as freedom in terms of enhancement of human living and the freedom to live and the kind of life that we have reason to value, then there is a strong case for focusing on the functioning and the capability to function’. (Sen, 2006:35) Freedom is both a basic constituent of development in itself and an enabling key to other aspects. Sen suggests a focus on what he calls capabilities—substantive human free-doms. Capabilities, as Sen and Nussbaum believe are designed to leave room for choice and to communicate the idea that there is a big difference between pushing the people into functioning in ways you consider valuable and leaving the choice up to them. (See also Sen, 2000 and Nussbaum, 2006: 56) Human freedom needs to be enhanced and are both means and ends of development. (Dreze and Sen, 2002: 3)

5. Empowerment of citizens can only be ensured if they are not just passive receivers of policies or their beneficiaries but have the freedom to think, to choose, to bargain, to negotiate, to argue, to plan, to decide, to challenge and to provide alternatives to the development policies decided without their consent.

6. The socially and economically underprivileged are politically marginalised which adversely affects their participation and thereby functioning of democracy. Dreze and Sen’s argument for local democracy, which is different from decentralisation, is important as ‘in the context of sharp local inequalities, decentralisation sometimes heightens the concentration of power and discourages participation of the underprivileged.’ (Dreze and Sen, 2002) We have seen how the Dalits and poor are being tortured and killed at the hands of the socially dominating caste and the Khap Panchayats (Caste Councils) socially boycott individuals who raise their voice against them.

7. ‘The state and society are recursively and mutually constituted in a dynamic and endless cyclical process of reconstitution.’ (Jayal, 1999:14) ‘Democracy is self-evidently an appraisive concept encompassing the formal aspect of democratic procedures and institutions but also the critical aspect that claims for a more participative and substantial democracy which would be manifested in the consequences of democratic process rather than in its procedures alone.’ (Ibid., 1999:22) However, the society-centred argument is that the social forces determine the nature of the state power. A strong civil society is important to check the authoritarian tendencies of state which curtail democracy. (Weiner, 1983:55) Thus “the word democracy has changed its meaning more than once, and in more than one direction,’ (Macpherson, 1966:1-2)

8. Sen has rightly argued that a thinking of development in terms of utility ‘is inadequate to capture the heterogeneity and non-commensurability of the diverse aspects of development’. (Also see Nussbaum, 2006: 50) Therefore ‘respect for pluralism itself requires commitment to some cross cultural principles as fundamental entitlements’. (Ibid., 66)

9. This has further strengthened the argument that by protecting the customary rights of the adivasis and their culture they are excluded from the mainstream politics and benefits of the socio-economic developments.

10. But in the past we have seen that the vast tribal population with its forest based economy which is outside the property rights and legal land rights have been displaced and deprived of their rights. Displaced citizens because of ‘Planned Development’ in the power, heavy industry, mining and irrigation spaces across the country and they have not been compensated from the policies of R & R.

11. However, it must be noted that the legitimacy of what constitutes public interest/common good is never open to discussion or participation.

12. Over the years exploitation of natural resources has affected the economy of the tribals adversely as they are dependent on these resources for many of their needs. (Sachchidananda, 1989: 278) Exploitation of tribals by non-tribals was an integral part of the colonial political economy and the whole gamut of exploitation in relation to land, labour, forest, agriculture and mines has been enhanced rather than reduced since independence. (Ibid., 314) The process of introducing private property rights in place of community property rights has caused hardship in the economy and social life of the tribals. (Also see B.K. Roy Burman, 1994) One has seen in Orissa, the Steel Plant in Rourkela and NALCO (National Aluminium Company) with its French collaboration have continued to exploit the mineral resources since 1956 and 1981 respectively, but the conditions of miners and local people of the region remain miserable. (Mohanty, 1989: 338-339) Thus, while resources rich in mineral and forest have attracted big development projects the interior tribal areas in the past have remained underdeveloped. (Ibid., 345) One can only foresee further worsening of the oppressive conditions of the villagers (mostly Dalits) if Posco, which has put Orissa into boil once again, finally sets up its steel plant after crushing many more lives under its foundation.

13. The Ministry of Rural Development, in its recently released report, observed that tribals have borne the brunt of displacement due to development projects, and that such land alienation and the consequent distress migration have devastated tribal families.

14. The concern of the Chipko Movement for control over their sustenance resources was based on the impact of deforestation on the specific ethnic community of Garhwal and Kumaon regions and also the human habitation of the entire Himalayan range. The policy of mechanisation in the fishery sector to exploit the untapped exportable potentials in the deep sea led to the fishworkers movement in the western coast covering Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Goa and Maharashtra. The Chilika Bachao Andolan against the Tata Prawn Project (despite difference within the movement) was also a protest for securing right to livelihood. The Narmada Valley Project to harness water for irrigation, drinking water and electricity led to resistance against big dams (Sardar Sarovar Project) which caused displacement of people in Gujurat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra. The NBA is a struggle by adivasis, kisans and mazdoors. In Tehri, Kaiga and Baliapal people have raised their voices against big development projects which resulted in loss of productive resources and large scale displacement. Similarly protests by marginal and small farmers, landless, Dalits and adivasis, pastoralists, fisher folks and diary workers against Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and big industrial companies/corporate sectors to protect the right to livelihood and prevent ecological degradation across rural India have raised vital issues which need to be debated further in the development agenda. More than a thousand SEZs have been approved across the country under the SEZ Act 2005 and Rules 2006 and the forcible land acquisition has caused widespread displacement, loss of livelihood and exclusion in these zones. The protest against land acquisition in Raigad, Nagpur and Pune in Maharastra, against Posco in Jagatsinghpur in Orissa, Dadri and Jhajjar in UP and Haryana, Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh and the struggles at Nandigram and Singur in West Bengal caused great political turmoil in the country and could be the reason for escalation in Maoist activity.

15. In Chhattisgarh, the Bastar region (comprising five districts—Dantewada, Bijapur, Narayanpur, Bastar and Kanker) has been the nerve-centre of Maoist militancy since the late 1980s. In Orissa, 10 years ago, Maoist activities were confined to just three to four districts. But by 2007, they had expanded to 15 of the State’s 30 districts. The CPI (Maoist) wielded influence in districts like Malkangiri, Koraput, Rayagada, Gajapati, Ganjam, Nabrangpur, Sambalpur, Deogarh, Sundargarh, and Mayurbhanj. During the last two years, they have spread to Nayagarh, Kandhamal and Boudh. Maoists are active in Bankura, Purulia and West Medinipur in West Bengal and the Lalgarh region has become the battleground between the security forces and the red brigade. In Andhra Pradesh, the districts of Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam, Karimnagar, East Godavari, Srikakulam and Visakhapatnam are battle grounds between the Greyhounds and Maoists. The whole of northern Telangana and the Eastern Ghat hills of the Godavari river are declared as guerrilla zones. Bhamragad taluka where the Madia Gond adivasis live is the heart of the Naxalite-affected region in Maharastra. A war-like situation exists between the alleged Maoist and anti-Maoist forces in Bodam, Patamda, Nimdih Ghagra area in Jharkhand. Maoists are based in parts of Gumla, Kishanganj and Purnia districts and Aurangabad, Gaya, Rohtas and Jehanabad are the worst Maoist-affected districts in Bihar.

16. It is precisely because of the strategy of violence that Naxalites are referred by the government as “the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by our country.” The CPI (Maoist) is regarded as a terrorist outfit and since June 22, 2009 it is banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act) (UAPA) 1967. Several State governments (Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh among others) have officially banned it.

17. Physical uprooting of the villagers will not only lead to psychological and cultural alienation but also to loss of one’s identity.

18. The Orissa Government plans to raise a tribal force, Jharkhand is raising ‘pahari’ battalions, training has been imparted in forested areas of the three Maoist-dominated West Bengal districts of West Medinipur, Bankura and Purulia to fight the Maoists. Each State is also being financially aided to raise India Reserve Battalions (IRBs). As a response to the Maoists’ attacks, the States have deployed additional Central forces and Counter-Insurgency Force (CIF) personnel in the Maoist affected areas to combat them.

19. The Naxalite/Maoist violence has seen a rise in recent months. On May 8 (exactly a month after 76 jawans were killed in Dantewada on April 6, 2010), eight CRPF jawans were killed when Naxals blew up their bullet-proof vehicle in Bijapur district of Chhattisgarh. The recent human tragedy, where 26 CRPF jawans were killed in a Maoist ambush in Chhattisgarh’s Nanayanpur district on June 29, compels us to rethink on the strategy of combing operations. (The Hindu, June 30, 2010) Maoists have killed many including Sudhangsu Maiti, a member of CPI (Marxist), in the Lalgarh region during the last few days (The Hindu, May 9, 2010: 9). On May 14, 2010, 30 armed Maoists reached Telarai village in Malkangiri district in Orissa. Forcing villagers to attend their meeting to reinstate the fear of Naxal terror in their minds, they blasted the office and godown of the panchayat. The reason for the blast, stated in the posters, was as the buildings would be used as shelter and camps for anti-Maoist operations. The villagers were threatened with dire consequences if they helped the police. (The Hindu, May 16, 2010: 7) On May 16, Maoists shot dead a police constable at Padia in Malkangiri district of Orissa. On the same day, Maoists killed six tribals in Rajanandgaon in Chhattisgarh ‘for allegedly passing on information to the police’. A supporter of the CPI (Marxist) was killed by suspected Maoists in West Medinipur district of West Bengal on May 16, 2010. On May 17, 2010 the Maoists struck again, blowing up a bus killing 31 people—15 civilians and 16 members of the security forces (many of them were Special Police Officers)—and injuring 27 at Chinga-varam on the Dantewada-Sukhma road in Chhattisgarh. It seems the bus was targeted because it had jawans as passengers inside it. On May 19, four jawans of the CRPF and a Deputy Commandant were killed and another jawan critically injured when Maoists triggered a landmine explosion near Lalgarh in West Bengal. The Railways estimated a loss at over Rs 5 crores when Maoists set afire an oil tanker after they blew up the railway track leading to derailment of a goods train in Motihari district in Bihar on May 20. Several news reports state that ‘in their efforts to intimidate and consolidate control, the Naxalites tax local villagers, extort businesses, abduct and kill “class enemies” such as government officials and police officers, and prevent aid from getting through to people who need it. To help fill their ranks, the Maoists force each family under their domain to supply one family member and threaten those who resist with violence.’

20. The Maoist massacre of CRPF jawans is unjust and needs to be condemned but if the Indian state continues to increases violence and atrocities against the adivasis in the name of cleansing the Maoists and persists to convert the red corridors into corporate corridors then a civil war is not far away.

21. Thus, democratic mobilisation and expansion of
political participation lead to crisis in governability. (Kohli, 1990)

22. We have seen that the state has always responded in similar manner to protests and social movements across the country. (Also see Jayal, 1999:206-207)

23. The most recent killings have been on May 15, 2010 in the Posco-plant site at Balitutha in Jagatsinghpur in Orissa (details in page 1). On April 29, 2010 (a month after the savage attack on March 30 by armed forces and Tata goons in eight villages in Jajpur district— Chandia, Baligoth, Chama Kutli, Gobarghati, Garhpur, Belhari and Ambagaria), armed forces arrived again at Baligotha village in Kalinga Nagar and demolished several houses of people refusing displacement. Houses of many villagers refusing displacement in Gadapur, Kalamatia, Champakoila, Bandargadia and Gobar-ghati villages have also been demolished. The DM has already warned that protestors would not be spared and the police have terrorised the villagers, who say that this is the most repressive and violent state they have experienced during the last few months. In the recent past the murder of Rasananda Patra, a Dalit trolley puller from Bandragadia, Sridhar Roy, a Tata contractor from Masakia village, whose bodies were found under mysterious circumstances reveals that a plot had been designed to trap the Maoists/Bisthapan Birodhi Jan Manch (BBJM) as responsible for their deaths. But the villagers say that the victims were earlier accused by the State officials as supporters of the villagers and the Maoists. Therefore they were murdered by the police, BJD cadre and Tata goons. The villagers of Aitpal in Sukhma, Chhattisgarh state that Mediyum Bandhi, a 27-year-old Adivasi, was killed by the police in fake encounter on May 20. The villagers alleged that the CRPF personnel often round up villagers suspecting them as Maoist sympathisers and even beat them up and they include women as well. Frequent attacks by uniformed men have destroyed livestock and property and villagers have died without receiving medical aid as their villages have been cordoned off from the nearby areas (having medical facilities) because they are resisting the Tata Steel factory and the Common Corridor road. Peaceful protesters have been attacked injuring men, women and children by rubber bullets, firing and lathicharge. The Special Operation Group, with assistance from the Greyhounds of Andhra Pradesh, repulsed a Maoist attack in the forests near Podapadar village in Narayanpatna block of Orissa on May 9, 2010. The exact number of Maoists killed by the police bullets is not known. Maoists have also been attacked in Jharkhand, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

24. A powerful call to end the ongoing war and initiate dialogue with the victims was issued by the Independent People’s Tribunal (IPT) which met in New Delhi (April 9-11) on the land acquisition, resource grab and Operation Green Hunt in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal. Social and human rights activists Himanshu Kumar, Dr Binayak Sen, Gladson Dungdung, Praveen Patel, Praful Samantrai, Abhay Sahu highlighted the atrocities on civilians. Testimonies of the victims of Maoist affected areas where counter-insurgency operations are conducted were recorded. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) has also endorsed the inability of the state to contain indiscriminate repression and exploitation by police and civil administrative authorities, and its failure to ensure human rights of the people of Jharkhand. It appeals to the people to oppose all kinds of violence, either perpetrated by any political group in the name of ideology by staging a war against state or sponsored in the name of Operation Green Hunt. People should protest through democratic and peaceful means against the inequitable policies of the state, corruption, police repression and for protection and promotion of their human rights (PUCL, May 4, 2010).

25. While the absence of open violence in the non- democratic settings does not necessarily indicate that the government governs well but an increase in violence in a democratic setting indicates growing crisis in governability. (Kohli, 1991: 23)

26. A14-page report by the then Union Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, to the Lok Sabha on March 13, 2006, asked the “affected” States not to enter into dialogue with the CPI (Maoist) unless they give up arms. The Union Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, appealed to all political parties to maintain a bipartisan approach in tackling Naxal violence. A day after the Maoists blew up a civilian bus on Chhattisgarh, he made a fresh offer to hold talks with the Naxals if they suspend violence even for just 72 hours. He further said that the Maoists never responded seriously to the offer of talks. (The Hindu, May 19, 2010:12)

27. The Maoists announced to observe “kala divas” from May 27 to June 2, 2010 in West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh in protest against alleged atrocities on innocent tribal people by the State governments and the Centre through the security forces. (The Hindu, May 21, 2010:14)

28. It is significant to not only give space to the voice of the deprived but also to respect their voice because in the absence of such a voice the government will be immune to public pressure when a policy fails or leads to further deprivation of the deprived. ‘Famines result from policy failures and occur in countries which lack democratic freedoms’. (Dreze and Sen, 2002: 4)

29. The Chief Minister of Orissa has instructed “top administrative and police officials of the affected districts to hold camps every Saturday and listen to the grievances of the people and solve their problems”. (IANS, May 5, 2010) A review of the progress of various welfare schemes carried out by the government in the four southern districts of Orissa, which are worst hit by Maoists, is a positive intervention of the State to resolve the conflict. But the CM’s statement contradicts the real state we saw on May 15, 2010 in Jagatsinghpur where armed forces fired and lathicharged the anti-Posco demonstrators without engaging in a dialogue.

Suranjita Ray teaches Political Science in Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi. She can be contacted at e-mail: suranjitaray_66@yahoo.co.in

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.