Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [IHRO] Re: [Arkitect India] CPI(ML) on the new LARR Bill

Expand Messages
  • Arun Shrivastava
    Dear Kavita, This is a fair approach in matters of R&R. And yes, the SC has turned a blind eye to many issues. There is no follow up on most crucial issues,
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 3, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Kavita,
      This is a fair approach in matters of R&R. And yes, the SC has turned a blind eye to many issues. There is no follow up on most crucial issues, except few.
       
      There is another issue: Land is acquired for say project X, people are drivn out, perhaps compensated, jobs promised. Then the project doesn't come up for two decades. [There are thousands of cases across India] I meant this case for the sake of illustration:
       
      What about the 11 issues of equity? What I wrote to you this morning has gone as an article in Farmers' Forum where I have discussed all this briefly. One of this is restitution of past mistakes.
       
      Kind regards, and thanks for your response. If you can direct me to your party's paper/website or any URL where this issue is dealth with, will be much obliged.
       
      Kind regards
      Arun Shrivastava
       
       
       

       

       
      On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Kavita Krishnan <kavitakrish73@...> wrote:
       

      Dear Arun,
      In response to your question: I can only talk of my party (CPI(ML))'s position on LA and RR. CPI(M) and its allies have already shown, in practice, (at Singur, Nandigram) that their approach isn't any different from that of the ruling class parties. Land grab to favour corporates, and then lathis and bullets on protesting peasants - that's the rule all over the country, and CPIM's has been no different.
      Our position is that the approach of the law ought to be to protect agricultural land from diversion/acquisition to the greatest extent possible. Forced land acquisition should be out - the gram sabhas should say whether or not land is multi-crop, and its consent should be mandatory for any acquisition. As for RR - the principles spelt out in certain crucial SC verdicts are fine (land for land, resettlement whereby the quality of life of those displaced should be better than before, RR not just for land losers but for livelihood losers too, etc); but the problem has been that these principles have never been implemented in practice - and the same Supreme Court that passed the verdict turned a blind eye to the fact that the RR it ordered in the Narmada case was flouted openly...
      Kavita


       

      On 3 August 2011 14:55, Arun Shrivastava <arunshrivastava.1951@...> wrote:
       

      Dear Kavita, Friends,
       
      I agree with you per se on scrapping LARR-2011. But my reasoning is different, based on our 18-month long research in Himachal Pradesh on the varied impacts on ecosystems, rural livelihoods, and QoL of local communities. The full report runs into 600 pages; the short report is about 34 pages. Far important from human rights' viewpoint is the fact that there have been violations of 11 issues of equity, year after year, by all project authorities, which this LARR-2011 is silent on.
       
      Our sample size was 5000 households spread over three river basins of Himachal Pradesh; the households were randomly selected from 33 Gram Panchayats from the Gram Sabha list.
       
      Few cases:
      Large projects affect not merely the project area but miles away. The Korba Alumina plan killed villagers 50-60 kilometres away from the plant and destroyed their agriculture. The undergorund aquifers were poisoned.
      Thousands of open cast coal mines in Ranchi and Bokaro are death traps, remain unrehabilitated; displaced persons uncompensated.
      The HEC [Ranchi] case which my colleagues and I from JNU days studied over nearly two years during 1995-96, shows that while 800 acres were required, 8000 were acquired; the original 1300 odd household list became 4500 household list; 100,000 mango trees were destroyed in what was known as "Lakh Bageecha" in 1960. I met a lady who once owned 150 acres of land [evidence from revenue record], received 27 rupees per acre, lost her mind, her husband died of TB; her two sons were shot dead in police "encounter." She was collecting plastic rags in the streets of Ranchi, and begged, to feed hersel. The HEC story is one of the most horrific I have documented since 1977. Our report was submitted to the Department of Tribal Development in 1996.
       
      There is no provision for restitution for past losses, continued deprivation of access and benefit sharing to natural resource base, and no inter-generational equity. There are 11 issues, I have mentioned three.
       
      In Moradabad district, 1100 acres of prime land was acquired for NEPA's aper plant 26 years ago. I spent a few days with the villagers [all CPIML supporters and members]  andwrote the case study. The project has not come up yet even after the pomp of Rajiv Gandhi laying the foundation stone in 1988 or 89. Instead, the UP Government tried to sell the land to a Bombay based form for five times the cost of acquisition.  The district court Judge had this to say: "Has the Government become property dealer?" How many examples you want to see? That is happening all over India.
       
      POSCO: I am on this one too. Enough information on this company to say this: (a) POSCO is a can of worms and (b) the Orissa project just might rescue this criminal corporation and all the banksters who are investors. Will post my report on arkitectindia and IHRO soon. I hope you have read Sampad's brilliant article on POSCO; the Korean members of the BoD are mere Korean faces.
       
      The LARR-2011 does not address any of the issues that we have raised in our report following the Himachal study.
      The issues are common across India. Even in Tirupur or Jaitapur or any N-E states.
       
      My question to the Left parties is this: what is your exact position on LA and RR?
       
      Kind regards
      Arun Shrivastava
       
       


       
      On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Kavita Krishnan <kavitakrish73@...> wrote:
       



      Scrap LARR Bill 2011 –

      Protect Agricultural Land By All Means

      Jairam Ramesh, the UPA government’s Minister of Rural Development, has come up with a draft Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill that will replace the notorious Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  The draft bill clearly seeks to legalise and intensify the ongoing corporate land-grab campaign in the country even as it talks about addressing “the concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired”.  

      Before being brought to the rural development ministry, Jairam Ramesh was in charge of the forest ministry where his greatest role was to give a green signal to the POSCO project in Odisha which seeks to acquire 4,000 acres of land in flagrant violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. And now as the Minister of Rural Development he has declared a veritable war on agricultural land and rural livelihood in the name of urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure development.

      The new bill gives complete freedom to all kinds of private companies to purchase land without even bothering about seeking any consent of concerned land-owners. The provision of seeking and obtaining the consent of “at least 80 per cent of the affected families” applies only when land is acquired by the government either for “immediate and declared use by private companies” or “with the ultimate intent of transferring it for the use of private companies”. And the government too is free from the consent clause when it acquires land for its own use whether for erecting dams, setting up nuclear plants, building military bases or constructing any project whatsoever.

      The bill talks of carrying out social impact assessments (where acquired land exceeds 100 acres) and keeping irrigated, multi-crop land outside the purview of land acquisition, but only when land is acquired by the government. Who will determine whether some land is multi-crop or not? We have seen in the case of Singur how multi-cropped land was declared as mono-crop by the government. The bill promises compliance with existing land-related laws like PESA Act, 1996 or Forest Rights Act, 2006, or the land transfer acts in Schedule V (tribal-majority) areas. But the record of implementation of these two acts is marked by extensive violation as can be seen on the ground in states like Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat or Maharashtra. In Odisha, the central and state governments are bent upon evicting as many as twelve villages to hand over 4,000 acres of land to the South Korean steel giant POSCO even as villagers are insisting on their land rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

      As for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement provisions of the bill, the corporate buyers will have to abide by them only when the size of the land acquired equals or exceeds 100 acres. The R&R provisions are also a big sham. It is common knowledge that sale deeds always hugely understate the market value of land and the new bill promises compensation to land-losers as multiples of average sale deed rate in the area. Apart from one-time compensation, the bill does promise annuity payment for twenty years, but an annuity of Rs. 2000 per month per affected family can hardly provide any meaningful assured income to a family that loses its all. There is talk of providing ‘mandatory employment’ for one person in every affected family, but if employment cannot be provided, a compensation of only Rs 200,000 will do! In other words, the UPA government’s ‘generous’ rehabilitation and resettlement package assesses agricultural income at Rs 2,000 per month and the value of employment at Rs. 200,000! 

      Global capitalism today is passing through bouts of severe recession. Many manufacturing sectors the world over are in deep crisis. Real estate and construction, mining and commercial agriculture (dedicated more to bio-fuel and horticulture than food production) remain the few most lucrative sectors in these recessionary times. No wonder then that capital is going all out to grab more and more land – the gateway to assured windfall gains in times of acute uncertainty and prolonged recession. This is the twenty-first century version of the predatory colonial occupation and brutal primitive accumulation of early capitalism.

      In the name of repealing the land acquisition act of the colonial era, the Indian state has now taken upon itself the task of spearheading and serving global capitalism’s war on Indian land and Indian agriculture. The proposed LARR Bill 2011 is nothing but a manifesto of this war couched in deceptive phrases like ‘informed consent’, ‘rehabilitation and resettlement’, and ‘partnership in development’. Even where the state will not be directly involved in acquisition, the peasantry and landless labourers will be left at the mercy of unmitigated corporate coercion, unleashed by a whole network of intermediaries and facilitated by a pro-corporate state and its administration.

      Food security was a key promise of the Congress and the UPA in the last Lok Sabha elections. Today the notion of food security has been reduced to monthly supply of 35 kg foodgrains to families earning less than Rs. 15 per day in rural areas and less than Rs. 20 in urban areas. This is a complete mockery of any meaningful notion of food security for a country like India. If food security has to guarantee the nutritional requirements of 1.2 billion Indians, India needs to produce much more food, and this in turn needs more land for agriculture. There can be no public purpose which is bigger than this. Defending agricultural land from the clutches of capital and its state is therefore the greatest task today of every patriotic and democratic Indian.  Not acquisition, but protection of agricultural and forest land by all means is the cry of democracy.

      (Editorial of the CPI(ML) Liberation's weekly publication, ML Update, dated 2 August- 8 August 2011).





      --
      Kavita Krishnan
      9560756628





      --
      Kavita Krishnan
      9560756628


    • psn.1946
      *Restitution of past mistakes:* * * *Repeated Supreme court judgments since the last two decades assert * * * *(1) Precautionary Principle (2) Polluter Pays
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Restitution of past mistakes:

        Repeated Supreme court judgments since the last two decades assert  

        (1) Precautionary Principle (2) Polluter Pays Principle and (3) Sustainable Development.

        Most of the developments were/are contrary to the above three mantras pronounced  by the Apex court.

        Particularly Mining, power generation in general and nuclear reactors in particular, Green Revolution, Gene Revolution and urban infrastructure development (bottomless hole).

        Who is to pay for the destroyed hills, forests, rivers, livelihood & health of millions?

        Assuming that someone pays for that, is it humanly possible to restore them?

        Sankara Narayanan 


        On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Arun Shrivastava <arunshrivastava.1951@...> wrote:
         

        Dear Kavita,
        This is a fair approach in matters of R&R. And yes, the SC has turned a blind eye to many issues. There is no follow up on most crucial issues, except few.
         
        There is another issue: Land is acquired for say project X, people are drivn out, perhaps compensated, jobs promised. Then the project doesn't come up for two decades. [There are thousands of cases across India] I meant this case for the sake of illustration:
         
        What about the 11 issues of equity? What I wrote to you this morning has gone as an article in Farmers' Forum where I have discussed all this briefly. One of this is restitution of past mistakes.
         
        Kind regards, and thanks for your response. If you can direct me to your party's paper/website or any URL where this issue is dealth with, will be much obliged.
         
        Kind regards
        Arun Shrivastava
         
         
         

         

         
        On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Kavita Krishnan <kavitakrish73@...> wrote:
         

        Dear Arun,
        In response to your question: I can only talk of my party (CPI(ML))'s position on LA and RR. CPI(M) and its allies have already shown, in practice, (at Singur, Nandigram) that their approach isn't any different from that of the ruling class parties. Land grab to favour corporates, and then lathis and bullets on protesting peasants - that's the rule all over the country, and CPIM's has been no different.
        Our position is that the approach of the law ought to be to protect agricultural land from diversion/acquisition to the greatest extent possible. Forced land acquisition should be out - the gram sabhas should say whether or not land is multi-crop, and its consent should be mandatory for any acquisition. As for RR - the principles spelt out in certain crucial SC verdicts are fine (land for land, resettlement whereby the quality of life of those displaced should be better than before, RR not just for land losers but for livelihood losers too, etc); but the problem has been that these principles have never been implemented in practice - and the same Supreme Court that passed the verdict turned a blind eye to the fact that the RR it ordered in the Narmada case was flouted openly...
        Kavita


         

        On 3 August 2011 14:55, Arun Shrivastava <arunshrivastava.1951@...> wrote:
         

        Dear Kavita, Friends,
         
        I agree with you per se on scrapping LARR-2011. But my reasoning is different, based on our 18-month long research in Himachal Pradesh on the varied impacts on ecosystems, rural livelihoods, and QoL of local communities. The full report runs into 600 pages; the short report is about 34 pages. Far important from human rights' viewpoint is the fact that there have been violations of 11 issues of equity, year after year, by all project authorities, which this LARR-2011 is silent on.
         
        Our sample size was 5000 households spread over three river basins of Himachal Pradesh; the households were randomly selected from 33 Gram Panchayats from the Gram Sabha list.
         
        Few cases:
        Large projects affect not merely the project area but miles away. The Korba Alumina plan killed villagers 50-60 kilometres away from the plant and destroyed their agriculture. The undergorund aquifers were poisoned.
        Thousands of open cast coal mines in Ranchi and Bokaro are death traps, remain unrehabilitated; displaced persons uncompensated.
        The HEC [Ranchi] case which my colleagues and I from JNU days studied over nearly two years during 1995-96, shows that while 800 acres were required, 8000 were acquired; the original 1300 odd household list became 4500 household list; 100,000 mango trees were destroyed in what was known as "Lakh Bageecha" in 1960. I met a lady who once owned 150 acres of land [evidence from revenue record], received 27 rupees per acre, lost her mind, her husband died of TB; her two sons were shot dead in police "encounter." She was collecting plastic rags in the streets of Ranchi, and begged, to feed hersel. The HEC story is one of the most horrific I have documented since 1977. Our report was submitted to the Department of Tribal Development in 1996.
         
        There is no provision for restitution for past losses, continued deprivation of access and benefit sharing to natural resource base, and no inter-generational equity. There are 11 issues, I have mentioned three.
         
        In Moradabad district, 1100 acres of prime land was acquired for NEPA's aper plant 26 years ago. I spent a few days with the villagers [all CPIML supporters and members]  andwrote the case study. The project has not come up yet even after the pomp of Rajiv Gandhi laying the foundation stone in 1988 or 89. Instead, the UP Government tried to sell the land to a Bombay based form for five times the cost of acquisition.  The district court Judge had this to say: "Has the Government become property dealer?" How many examples you want to see? That is happening all over India.
         
        POSCO: I am on this one too. Enough information on this company to say this: (a) POSCO is a can of worms and (b) the Orissa project just might rescue this criminal corporation and all the banksters who are investors. Will post my report on arkitectindia and IHRO soon. I hope you have read Sampad's brilliant article on POSCO; the Korean members of the BoD are mere Korean faces.
         
        The LARR-2011 does not address any of the issues that we have raised in our report following the Himachal study.
        The issues are common across India. Even in Tirupur or Jaitapur or any N-E states.
         
        My question to the Left parties is this: what is your exact position on LA and RR?
         
        Kind regards
        Arun Shrivastava
         
         


         
        On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Kavita Krishnan <kavitakrish73@...> wrote:
         



        Scrap LARR Bill 2011 –

        Protect Agricultural Land By All Means

        Jairam Ramesh, the UPA government’s Minister of Rural Development, has come up with a draft Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill that will replace the notorious Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  The draft bill clearly seeks to legalise and intensify the ongoing corporate land-grab campaign in the country even as it talks about addressing “the concerns of farmers and those whose livelihoods are dependent on the land being acquired”.  

        Before being brought to the rural development ministry, Jairam Ramesh was in charge of the forest ministry where his greatest role was to give a green signal to the POSCO project in Odisha which seeks to acquire 4,000 acres of land in flagrant violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. And now as the Minister of Rural Development he has declared a veritable war on agricultural land and rural livelihood in the name of urbanization, industrialization and infrastructure development.

        The new bill gives complete freedom to all kinds of private companies to purchase land without even bothering about seeking any consent of concerned land-owners. The provision of seeking and obtaining the consent of “at least 80 per cent of the affected families” applies only when land is acquired by the government either for “immediate and declared use by private companies” or “with the ultimate intent of transferring it for the use of private companies”. And the government too is free from the consent clause when it acquires land for its own use whether for erecting dams, setting up nuclear plants, building military bases or constructing any project whatsoever.

        The bill talks of carrying out social impact assessments (where acquired land exceeds 100 acres) and keeping irrigated, multi-crop land outside the purview of land acquisition, but only when land is acquired by the government. Who will determine whether some land is multi-crop or not? We have seen in the case of Singur how multi-cropped land was declared as mono-crop by the government. The bill promises compliance with existing land-related laws like PESA Act, 1996 or Forest Rights Act, 2006, or the land transfer acts in Schedule V (tribal-majority) areas. But the record of implementation of these two acts is marked by extensive violation as can be seen on the ground in states like Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat or Maharashtra. In Odisha, the central and state governments are bent upon evicting as many as twelve villages to hand over 4,000 acres of land to the South Korean steel giant POSCO even as villagers are insisting on their land rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

        As for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement provisions of the bill, the corporate buyers will have to abide by them only when the size of the land acquired equals or exceeds 100 acres. The R&R provisions are also a big sham. It is common knowledge that sale deeds always hugely understate the market value of land and the new bill promises compensation to land-losers as multiples of average sale deed rate in the area. Apart from one-time compensation, the bill does promise annuity payment for twenty years, but an annuity of Rs. 2000 per month per affected family can hardly provide any meaningful assured income to a family that loses its all. There is talk of providing ‘mandatory employment’ for one person in every affected family, but if employment cannot be provided, a compensation of only Rs 200,000 will do! In other words, the UPA government’s ‘generous’ rehabilitation and resettlement package assesses agricultural income at Rs 2,000 per month and the value of employment at Rs. 200,000! 

        Global capitalism today is passing through bouts of severe recession. Many manufacturing sectors the world over are in deep crisis. Real estate and construction, mining and commercial agriculture (dedicated more to bio-fuel and horticulture than food production) remain the few most lucrative sectors in these recessionary times. No wonder then that capital is going all out to grab more and more land – the gateway to assured windfall gains in times of acute uncertainty and prolonged recession. This is the twenty-first century version of the predatory colonial occupation and brutal primitive accumulation of early capitalism.

        In the name of repealing the land acquisition act of the colonial era, the Indian state has now taken upon itself the task of spearheading and serving global capitalism’s war on Indian land and Indian agriculture. The proposed LARR Bill 2011 is nothing but a manifesto of this war couched in deceptive phrases like ‘informed consent’, ‘rehabilitation and resettlement’, and ‘partnership in development’. Even where the state will not be directly involved in acquisition, the peasantry and landless labourers will be left at the mercy of unmitigated corporate coercion, unleashed by a whole network of intermediaries and facilitated by a pro-corporate state and its administration.

        Food security was a key promise of the Congress and the UPA in the last Lok Sabha elections. Today the notion of food security has been reduced to monthly supply of 35 kg foodgrains to families earning less than Rs. 15 per day in rural areas and less than Rs. 20 in urban areas. This is a complete mockery of any meaningful notion of food security for a country like India. If food security has to guarantee the nutritional requirements of 1.2 billion Indians, India needs to produce much more food, and this in turn needs more land for agriculture. There can be no public purpose which is bigger than this. Defending agricultural land from the clutches of capital and its state is therefore the greatest task today of every patriotic and democratic Indian.  Not acquisition, but protection of agricultural and forest land by all means is the cry of democracy.

        (Editorial of the CPI(ML) Liberation's weekly publication, ML Update, dated 2 August- 8 August 2011).





        --
        Kavita Krishnan
        9560756628





        --
        Kavita Krishnan
        9560756628



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.