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.