Land Acquisition from a state’s perspective

Will the proposed changes to the 2013 Land Acquisition Law make land acquisition easier and more equitable? In the ongoing debate, this question is mostly being answered from a national perspective. But the debate can become better informed if issues are examined with reference to a concrete state-specific situation.

The Odisha case is particularly interesting because of three reasons. Firstly, states like Odisha, though quite large, do not really capture the imagination of the national media in view of the skewed distribution of political power and media reach (TRPs). Secondly, Odisha has huge natural resources and growth potential, much more than any other state in the country, though continuing to be one of the poorest. Thirdly, no matter what the law is or ultimately becomes, the implementation has to be done at the state level, and a law will be of little consequence if it cannot be implemented.

In 1983, the government of Sri Janaki Ballabh Patnaik, in which I was the Irrigation Minister, proposed a second dam on the Mahanadi River at Manibhadra. Odisha had been ravaged  in 1982 by the worst floods till date. The objective was laudable as the River Mahanadi indeed needs a second dam for effective flood control in Odisha’s coastal districts and the lone dam at Hirakud was aging. But there were massive protests in Western Odisha and even a fear that the state was getting divided on regional lines. The project had to be shelved. This was the first lesson for us in Odisha  that large scale acquisition of land like for the Hirakud Dam will no longer be  possible.

The second major project that had to be abandoned was the National Missile Test Range in 54 villages of Baliapal and Bhograi Blocks in Balasore districts. This was in 1986. As a minister in the state government, I was privy to the project. The Union Government had told us that the missile range was vital for India’s national security. Scientists had advised that the land chosen was the most suitable in terms of geo-location, and the integrated range could serve the dual purposes of missile and rocket testing for military purposes as well as space exploration. We were also assured that there would be no paucity of funds for rehabilitation and resettlement. Central forces were provided to deal with the agitators. Baliapal became a huge and successful popular movement of the people, the first movement of its kind in independent India. The villagers erected barricades and did not allow state functionaries to enter the area, and finally the project had to be abandoned. There was little that we could do. The national security argument and the call for patriotism made no headway.

We have seen similar resistance movements in Odisha’s Gandhamardan, and more recently, in Niyamgiri. In Kalinga Nagar, where Tata Steel is setting up a 10 million-tonne steel plant, during the process of construction of a compound wall, there was a violent clash between local adivasis and the state police in January 2006. 12 adivasis died in police firing, and one police man was hacked to death. After a decade, the land acquisition for the Tata Steel Plant is still not completed, the commissioning of the plant has been grossly delayed, and the local community has been scarred permanently and is very unhappy with the current resettlement process.

South Korean Company POSCO signed an MOU with Odisha Government in June 2005 for setting up a steel plant. Opposition by people meant huge delays in the land acquisition process; in the meantime, POSCO is no longer sure of getting mining linkage and the future of the project is ‘uncertain’. POSCO Steel Plant was to become the largest foreign direct investment in India.

So the last three decades have seen the rise of very strong resistance movements and repeated failure of the state to enforce its power of eminent domain, i.e the power to acquire land for public purpose. People debating these issues from ivory towers either are unaware of the ground reality or expect the problems to go away. I am unable to join them in their dreams because I have been a grassroots person and have long administrative experience in dealing with these problems.

In all these instances that I have cited the use of the State’s power of eminent domain, the might of the state and promises of the best compensation packages could not defeat peoples’ resistance. All the tricks of the game were used. Yet, people held out. The Delhi-Mumbai elite need to accept the reality of India. After seeing the resilience of Odisha’s farmers, adivasis and dalits and working with them for the last four decades I am convinced that any attempt at forcible land acquisition in Odisha for large projects will fail unless people can become partners in the growth process. I cannot say whether it will make land acquisition easier in Gujarat, but it will make no headway in Odisha.

The 2013 Act provides a workable solution and a framework to make development inclusive. Not that the 2013 Act would have made land acquisition easier, or less prone to failure. But at least there was a chance. So make whatever changes to the law you wish by using parliamentary numbers, people will not give up.

This is not a fight between the BJP and the Congress, as some may superficially imagine. The issues are much larger and can cause serious class conflict and violence; at many places, the ultra-left groups will benefit the most. There are many laws in the statute book in India that are not implemented and may be un-implementable. If an attempt is made to acquire land forcibly and without fair compensation by changing the 2013 Act, the new law will also enter the category of un-implementable laws.

Why has land acquisition failed so frequently? In the first three decades after independence, the state could acquire vast tracts of land to set up large industries, dams and irrigation projects. Each time people were displaced, they were promised adequate compensation, a share in the benefits, and a brighter future for themselves and their children. But, in due course people found the growth did not become inclusive, and many were left running from pillar to post to get what they were promised. Some claims are unsettled after 5o years at this writing. People no longer trust the state represented by a politico-bureaucratic combine and deeply resent displacement.

Most people affected by land acquisition happen to be small and marginal farmers, share croppers and landless people. A majority of these people are adivasis, dalits and people from other socio-economically backward communities because it is mostly under their land that minerals are located. These are the people who live in the hills and forests and face the maximum displacement. In earlier times, they buckled under pressure and clung to the hope of just treatment. But no more. They have no asset other than a small patch of land that they propose to bequeath to the next generation as the only source of livelihood.

Odisha has had no benefit of the green revolution, farming is unsustainable. Because of poor investment in the social sector, people have very little education and employable skills in an industrial economy. They will allow no land acquisition unless they are on board and can see a long-term interest in allowing land acquisition.

So industries planning to acquire land have two options. Either they work with the people using the framework created under the 2013 Act, or crib at the World Economic Forum Meetings in Davos in suit and boot about administrative paralysis and cost of doing business in India.    

The question is whether industries and governments will change their approach to land acquisition. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik promised land to many including POSCO, Mittal, Tatas. He signed MOUs with private companies without taking the consent of the people. People rejected the MOUs, land acquisition failed and projects had to be shelved.

The 2013 Act makes the possibility of land acquisition much more likely and Industry should have accepted the reform as a viable compromise formulae, a possible middle ground and worked with it for a few years rather than subverting it through a government they have brought to power with generous support.

First published on www.ndtv.com on May 21, 2015

Remembering "JB"

In the early hours of 21 April 2015, I was shocked to hear of the sad demise of Janaki Ballabh Patnaik.  Ever since, I have tried to console myself; after all death is the ultimate truth and “JB” as fondly known in the political circle lived a full and successful life; but it has been difficult, rather impossible to reconcile. He was a mentor, a friend-philosopher-guide, guardian and much more to me and to the people of Odisha and the loss will always remain irreparable. His death has left behind the feeling of a deep void within.

The outpouring of grief on the streets of Odisha bears testimony to the great-man’s legacy. He was truly a multi-faceted personality: eminent journalist, newspaper editor, political leader, literary giant and a spokesperson for Odisha’s culture and heritage and much has been said in the last few days highlighting these different facets.  I will look at JB’s political contribution in course of this write up.

Among the crowd of the grieving one could hardly not feel the deep sadness and sense of loss felt by the workers, leaders and supporters of the Congress Party. All the last three elections that Congress Party has won in Odisha were fought under JB’s leadership. The leaders who followed him could not repeat JB’s electoral success or make the party as strong and credible. The sense of nostalgia is palpable. JB was the ultimate party patriarch. He knew thousands of workers and leaders up to Panchayat level. His encyclopedic memory and understanding of grassroots situations meant that leaders could talk to him and immediately find a resonance. Always humble, polite and receptive, he stayed connected to the workers through thick and thin, built a formidable party organization and could never be replaced and can never be replaced. JB’s death gave an occasion for the Congress workers to express their gratitude and reciprocate.

I could see the gratitude in the eyes of thousands of Congress leaders, even those who may not have spared an opportunity to traduce the great soul. Let me look back a little beyond into history to explain how I understand the context of his emergence and his true contribution to the Congress Party.

In 1967 Odisha became the second state in India to elect a non-Congress Government. How did that take place? First came the resignation of Biju Patnaik under the Kamraj Plan and Biren Mitra became Chief Minister, then student agitation and allegation of corruption against the Biju-Biren duo. In the next few years many stalwarts of the Party in the state started drifting away from the Congress. For a while some of them under Biju floated Utkal Congress. Finally Nandini Devi became Chief Minister in 1972 after Biswanath Das and won the election in 1973, but she also left Congress after the emergency. Till JB became Chief Minister, no Chief Minister had completed a full five years term including Harekrushna Mahatab and Biju Patnaik. If one leader was made the Chief Minister, the rest ganged up; there was perennial power struggle within the Congress Party and political stability looked illusive. So, the fact that JB completed a full term in his first term (1980-1985) surprised pundits.

Anti-Congressism is not unknown to Odisha. Before creation of the modern state of Odisha on 1 April 1936 many in Odisha had felt that the Indian National Congress was too much under the control of Bengal leaders and therefore not willing to fully back and sympathize with the demand for a separate Odisha state. In the years after independence Congress enjoyed a virtual monopoly in the country and represented the national consensus. But, soon after Nehru’s death Congress started losing its monopoly and Kerala elected the communist government of E.M.S. Namboodripad, followed by Odisha. Swatantra Party consisting of rulers of former princely states mustered significant influence at a time when the public mood was against the Biju-Biren led Congress Party and Rajendra Narayan Singhdeo, a former Maharaja of Bolangir became the first non-Congress Chief Minister in 1967. By 1971 Mrs Indira Gandhi had established herself as the most popular leader in the country. She particularly held sway among the poor, adivasis and dalits. This then became the source of revival of the Congress Party in Odisha. Mrs Gandhi brought in Nandini Satpathy in 1972 as the new face to lead the Congress. However, anti-Congressism remained alive and grew during emergency. After the emergency Mrs Satpathy left the Congress and the party was again in search of a new leader. JB became the face Congress in Odisha since 1980, the longest that any leader could maintain such a position in the Congress Party in Odisha.

Political development in Odisha from 1964, i.e. Kamraj Plan and a strong sense of regional aspiration since the movement to create a separate state of Odisha on linguistic basis have ensured the emergence of a very strong anti-Congressim, particularly in coastal Odisha districts. These developments also created strong leaders opposing the Congress. Congress is not a regional party. The party’s functioning, whether in Government or outside, always gives rise to a group of dissidents. Ultimately, the final decision is always with the High Command and the dissidents were not infrequent visitors to Delhi. So, as the leader in-charge of the state unit JB had to deal with dissidents within the Party and a strong and vocal opposition outside the Party. This is why his political success was truly remarkable. He had to weather many storms to stay afloat.

JB became successful because he was a democrat and deeply intellectual. He tolerated opposition within the Party and outside. He had great administrative skills and great skills in floor management. Speaking in impeccable Odia, JB would defend the Government astutely and with great intellectual skill against bitter attack from a formidable opposition.

JB’s political legacy must be assessed in the context of his times. Here was a leader who withstood opposition within and without and persisted with an agenda of governance and development. He knew that the opposition was formidable, the circumstances adversarial and yet he maintained composure and kept persisting. I believe that JB’s success was inspired by a deep philosophical understanding of life derived from his reading of Hindu scriptures and unshakable faith in God and destiny. In that sense JB as a literary giant and JB as a great political leader are indistinguishable. Without formidable intellect and brilliance, he would not have been half as successful.

In my understanding JB was the most talented political leader that Odisha has produced, sad that the state did not benefit more from his commitment to the development of state.

The life of any great political leader is equally a reflection on the contemporaneous history and that is how I look back at JB’s contribution as a political leader. An era has ended. Congress Party will have to come to terms with the outpouring of emotions on the streets of Odisha by deciphering the meaning from the grief, from the tears and the chants of JB Patnaik…Amar Rahe…. What did JB mean to the ordinary Congress workers and how do they look at JB’s legacy? And what message do they have for the leaders and the Party?

His wise counsel will no longer be available to the Congress Party.

Odisha’s vicious cycle of Mal-governance and Poverty

On July 16, 2014 one Shyama Chandra Rao and his wife were arrested on the charge that they had sold their one month old baby for five thousand rupees. They admitted to have sold two of their children earlier. Family, relatives and neighbors were aware of all these sales. These events happened in Bhubaneswar, state’s capital and a few kilometers from the citadel of power, the state secretariat. Three sales would mean that for the last five years this had been happening and in the complete knowledge of the locality. How distant is our government from the poor? Geographically the distance was barely a couple of kilometers, but in reality Government remains light years away from the people. In more remote areas, Government is as distant as the stars in the sky. One of the Cabinet Ministers of the State Government admitted that this is a shame for the incumbent Government. But, such self-abnegation does not reduce the gravity of the situation. Such is the level of deprivation among the poor, despite tall claims and expensive propaganda by the ruling elite that parents are selling children not merely in remote rural areas, but even in the heart of the state’s capital.

In December, 2013 henchmen of a labour contractor chopped off right hands of two workers Nilambara Dhangada Majhi, 35 and Pialu Dhangada Majhu, 30, both adivasis in Bolangir district. Recently Supreme Court passed some scathing remarks at the goings-on in the state and wondered if the state is in dark ages. Migration of labour for survival or higher wages, particularly during non-agricultural seasons, from KBK region is widely known and yet the state government failed either to create jobs to prevent migration or stop criminal gangs from turning this economic event into an opportunity to sustain a new form of barbaric slavery and illicit trade of humans as cattle. The savagery in this instance is only an indication of perpetual violence, coercion and unfavourable terms of contract under which a new form of bonded labour perpetuates itself right under the nose of the state government. 

In the last few months police have unearthed illegal kidney transplant rackets. But, the suspicion is, what has been discovered, is just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. There are many willing people in Odisha to trade organs for making some money. Of course this is a problem that the state shares with many other parts of the country.

Last week a minor girl was rescued from Goa. Again smuggling of girls or flesh trade is not unique to Odisha and is a global problem. But, basically what is unique to Odisha is a convergence of the worst manifestation of poverty and malgovernance; children being sold, bonded labour and forced migration under coercive contractual terms, sale of human organs, smuggling of young girls. It should not be forgotten that Odisha has the highest level of hunger and malnutrition in India comparable to sub-Saharan Africa. Put all these together and the picture that emerges is utterly depressing.

The national media and elite is hardly interested in any of these and in Odisha if you raise these issues you can be criticized for painting the state in bad light by ignoring the spectacular development under the leadership of Naveen Patnaik. After all he recently received endorsement of his 15 years rule. In fact, my understanding is Naveen Babu’s success is an indication of an extreme poverty and backwardness. People do understand the malgovernance, lack of industrialization and job opportunities. But, the problem is in a state with such high level of poverty, depravity and hunger Naveen Patnaik has found magic potions like the one rupee rice scheme. If people are willing to sell their children to live another day or sell themselves in the bonded labour market, they will certainly be beholden to a leader they perceive to have given them 25 Kgs of rice. They are concerned about their immediate survival and Naveen Babu has craftly used money of the Central Government to take advantage of peoples desperation, hunger and depravity.

The poverty-line debate may produce different statistics regarding the number of poor who need immediate attention and targeting. But, as the Raghurajan Committee report found, Odisha continues to be the most backward state in the country. Nabeen babu has remained in power for 15 years and has been claiming that poverty is getting eradicated rapidly except that his success and continuance of poverty are closely inter-related. The problem in the political success of an inefficient administrator is that poverty becomes a necessity for success. Once people are out of their desperate conditions they will seek employment, better infrastructure, improvement in agriculture and then they will find that the present Government has cheated them all along.

I am surprised how muted is the response of the national media to the story of the Rao couple selling three of their children right in the state capital. The national media wants to cover big news; human depravity of the sub-Saharan standard lacks high TRP in the Indian middle class homes. The national media is happier projecting the smiling face of Naveen Babu with the sound bite of his impeccable English; much better visual and sound bite than the agony of the Rao’s admitting to selling children or the cry of the two workers whose hands were chopped off.

The state of affairs in Odisha is a result of leadership failure across professions and political divide. Hardly are our intellectuals willing to voice dissent or hardly do I find Odish’a economist publishing research papers exposing the Government. When I meet political leaders, retired professors, retired civil servants, seasoned media persons I find a clear recognition of the debilitating effect of the BJD rule. But, most are cynical and express helplessness. “What do we do if people are voting for Naveen in such large numbers”, asked one. Of course there are a few, though really very few sensible people, who are still willing to endorse the regime and mostly for securing personal favours from the regime. Despite his political success Naveen Babu is left without many supporters among the thinking class in the state, though they remain silent against the torrent of majority votes. One wonders how does the state come out of this level of pessimism and cynical acceptance of misrule, if so many opt to just keep mum. One senior journalist compared BJD rule to the last years of the left regime in West Bengal. Fortunately for Bengal a strong political opposition emerged giving people an alternative. Bengal intellectuals, many of them left-leaning, supported the change despite their general support for the left ideology. They realized and accepted that political stability had made the state a moribund society and people had lost their creative energy to go forward. Odisha also needs a strong political alternative and a more vocal intellectual class if the state is to be taken out of the quagmire of mal-governance and stagnation.

Transforming Indian Politics: ‘Personality Cult’ vrs. Systemic Reform

Interview of Sri Rahul Gandhi to a TV channel has become a major talking point in conventional as well as social media. No one should forget that Congress has been in power for the last ten years and if Shri Rahul Gandhi had wanted he would be Prime Minister today. I am not sure if anyone else would have given up the opportunity to be India’s PM. Why PM, we would not wink an eyelid to settle for much less?

 

By all reckoning Shri Gandhi had a tumultuous childhood. He saw power from very close quarters when his grandmother Indira Gandhi and father Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers. Equally, he remembers how Mrs. Gandhi was jailed and finally assassinated and Rajivji was called names and killed. I am not surprised that he has not got the thirst for office characteristic of the Indian political class and he is not desperate like many. He has seen it all. Both his grandmother and his father were great patriots, served the nation with utmost sincerity and yet they were consumed by the vicissitudes of unkind Indian Politics. After all that he has experienced in life why should he be scared of anything or anybody? As he rightly said one has to look deeper into his life’s circumstances.

The young leader is deeply conscious of the basic unfairness in Indian society and believes that unless there is fundamental reform in the structures and processes of Indian politics, people will not be empowered and public policy will be lopsided. Currently, the doors of political office are not open to talented youth unless they come from political families. Once someone becomes MP or MLA he or she dominates the constituency for a long long time, at times for as much as half a century. A vacancy occurs when a leader is no more, only to be filled by the late leader’s kith and kin. Even at the state or central levels a few individuals decide who will contest for political office. An aspiring MP or MLA needs money to nurture a constituency, build a cadre base and organize political activities and then there is a huge additional cost in contesting elections. Most young men and women stand no chance. Also, the MPs and MLAs by tradition have to do the work of local self government rather than be judged for the purpose for which they are elected, i.e. law making. Major political parties and their leadership lack the courage or the conviction to make basic political reform the focus of public discourse. They want to market a few dreams and somehow occupy office even if for a few months, often they appeal for an opportunity to be in office at least for a few months. What Shri Gandhi is saying is that India has seen many Governments, but the political system remains innately unfair and closed and unless we can change the system there is no escape from unfairness, nepotism and corruption. He continues to be driven not by any chair, but by the desire to expand and deepen democracy. I thought his argument was matured and sophisticated and should be understood with an open and progressive mind. If he is not waving a magic wand, it is out of basic honesty and depth of understanding.

Congress Party has decided to hold primaries for selection of candidates in 15 Parliamentary Constituencies for 2014 elections as a proof of concept. So, not the High Command, not the PCC, not the Pradesh Election Committee, not through lobby, but by direct voting people of these Constituencies will choose their own candidate. This is the biggest experiment in political reform since independence that is being attempted. True, a baby step, but extremely significant. I find it strange that the media is hardly keen on such substantive issues. Because the political structures in countries like the Unites States of America are open that a Black academic from Harvard, Barack Obama is today the President of the most powerful country in the world. He was nominated not by a few Washington insiders, but by the cadre of the Democratic Party, though he does not belong to any political family. A time will come when party tickets for any constituency will be decided not by Delhi or Bhubaneswar, but by the party supporters of that constituency.

Such radical and fundamental reform will in no way be easy to implement. Firstly, those dominating politics will not easily relinquish their position and influence to make way for talented youngsters. Secondly, all political parties have to start a similar process of reform to open their doors because ‘winability’ may work more in favour of established players. Thirdly, instead of voting on merit local considerations of caste and community can derail the process of creating a meritocracy. What Shri Gandhi is expecting is that there will be debate among potential candidates and the best will be chosen by majority vote like in the United States. But, leaders who are established would also have nurtured the cadre and end up becoming candidates even in the new selection process. Moreover, there has to be a redefinition of the power and responsibility of MPs and MLAs. Today they are encroaching upon the powers of local self-governments. They have to yield to functionaries in the Panchyat Raj Institutions and Municipal bodies and focus on law making; effective control over the executive, particularly through the legislative committees. But, India will have to bring about radical reform in the political process if we are to expand and deepen democracy and build a system based on fairness and justice. The way Indian democracy is functioning is not exactly the way it was conceived or anticipated. Many distortions have crept in that need a course correction to avoid the twin threats of autocracy and anarchy.

In the American System the President, no matter how talented or popular, can have only two terms, which comes to a maximum of eight years in office. In India, like in many other developing countries, once elected, PMs and CMs build a huge personality cult. A bunch of self-serving sycophants surround these leaders and sing paeans to create illusions. Those who were three years old when Naveen Patnaik came to power in Odisha have now become voters. Those who were taking their matriculation examination may by now be 30 years old. Since childhood, they have remembered the name of Naveen Patnaik as part of general knowledge. So, the name Naveen Patnaik dominates in their conscious self and reinforced consistently by huge billboards, cutouts, advertisements, media coverage and populist freebies; all telling them that Naveen Babu is pro-people, has developed Odisha and will soon make the state prosperous. Once there is such a huge personality cult hardly is there any scope for debate on public policy because many have already made up their minds. So, I am not surprised when these young men ask if there is any comparable alternative leader. The whole situation is convoluted and bizarre.

Just to avoid emergence of a ‘personality cult’ our constitution makers had after long deliberation selected a Parliamentary form of Government, despite the fact that India is a federal country like the United States and a Presidential System looked a more attractive proposition. Unfortunately, the principal opposition party in the country BJP has decided to go for a Presidential style election campaign. In my opinion it is the duty of every citizen to respect the Constitution and it would have been wrong on the part of the Congress Party to announce a PM candidate disrespecting laid down constitutional process. If Shri Gandhi  was desperate to become PM, he would already be PM, why announce his name. But he has his eyes on larger issues of democracy and public policy making. Leaders can always avoid substantive questions of democracy and resort to rhetoric using Bollywood-Style dialogues of 56 inch chests converting political discourse to a populist soap opera. After a while people will realize that they were cheated by clever marketing, but crucial opportunities to initiate substantive reform would have been lost once again. The focus on personality and the focus on reforming the system are two divergent ideological positions.

The Congress and the BJP represent two distinct ideologies and not two individuals or personalities. Shri Gandhi  believes that unless we are able to reform the system, governments will come and go, but the basic unfairness in the system cannot be eradicated. Leaders will promise many things to the people, but after a while the basic unfairness will catch up, system will be unable to deliver and ultimately in frustration people will reject one set of leaders in favour of another, but not before feeling disillusioned and cheated once again.